DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed on
09/09/2025.
Claim 21 is newly added by the Applicant.
Claims 1-21 are pending and have been examined.
All previous objections/rejections not mentioned in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the Examiner.
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 .
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Amendments to the claims by the Applicant have been considered and addressed below.
With respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejections, the Applicant provides several arguments in which the Examiner will respond accordingly, below.
35 USC § 103 rejection(s)
Arguments in pages 9-12 of the Remarks filed on 02/25/2026
Examiner’s Response to Arguments:
Arguments have been considered but these are not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments of Wang not teaching the limitation of “reduced-resolution” (i.e., Applicant respectfully disagrees. Importantly, displaying all of the data from all of the data cells of the data table in a smaller area within the GUI results only in a data table that is reduced in size, not a data table that is reduced in resolution, as recited in the above claim limitations. Notably, displaying all of the data from the data table in a smaller area results in an increase in resolution (eg, the amount of displayed data per unit area), not a reduction in resolution, as claimed. Accordingly, Applicant submits that displaying an increased-resolution version of a data table is not the same as displaying a reduced-resolution version of an image, as expressly recited in the above claim limitations.).
More specifically, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s definition of resolution and notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term of “resolution” is defined as the level of detail contained in an image (number of pixels within the image) [Adobe: https://www.adobe.com/uk/creativecloud/photography/discover/image-resolution.html]. Hence, in this particular case, a reduced-resolution is interpreted to have a reduced level of detail (or number of pixels) contained in an image compared to the full size. Therefore, the providing (by Wang) a size-reduced version of the two-dimensional table 3002 in response to a user input reads on the limitation as drafted.
Hence, the rejection(s) for independent claims are maintained in view of Wiener et al. (US 20190074987 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20220027559 A1).
For more details, please refer to updated 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for claims 1-21, below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/05/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener et al. (US 20190074987 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20220027559 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wiener et al. discloses:
A computer-implemented method for generating visualizations of recorded meeting data (see Fig. 1 (computing device 110) and ¶ [0016]: “…As shown, system 100 includes, without limitation, a computing device 110 coupled via dial-in infrastructure networks 140 to multiple meeting participants 150(0) to 150(m).” ¶ [0025]: Generating Summaries and Insights from Meeting Recordings, ¶ [0084]: “…aggregation engine 204 may display timelines, charts, visualizations, and/or other graphical representations of the summary and insights in a user interface, such as user interface 206 of FIG. 2”; see also ¶ [0061], referencing output visualizations in user interface 206), the method comprising:
generating a first visualization of a plurality of parameters based on a plurality of transcript sentences associated with the recorded meeting data (see Fig. 3A (graphical representations in user interface 206) and ¶ [0074]: “Portion 304 includes graphical representations of categories of words and phrases found in the meetings…”, ¶ [0084]: “…aggregation engine 204 may display timelines, charts, visualizations, and/or other graphical representations of the summary and insights in a user interface, such as user interface 206 of FIG. 2”, ¶ [0036-0038]: … meeting recordings are transcribed into transcript lattices, e.g., using automatic speech recognition and/or language models, ¶ [0048, 0052-0053]: transcription lattices are converted into indexes 208, and such indexes 208 are used by threading engine 202 to identify topics and aggregate meeting data, such as aggregating highlights 218, key points, topics, and other meeting themes, and ¶ [0074]: this aggregated meeting data is then displayed as graphical representations as explained.);
displaying the first visualization (see Fig. 3A, graphical representations of categories are displayed via user interface 304; ¶ [0074] as disclosed in limitation above.) and a first expanded content visualization of a first transcript sentence included in the plurality of transcript sentences within a graphical user interface (GUI), wherein the first expanded content visualization includes a first thumbnail image associated with the first transcript sentence (see Fig. 3B and ¶ [0075-0077]: graphical representation of additional information related to the “Commitments category” (category 4 in Fig. 3A), e.g., expanded content visualization, or additional and more detailed content with respect to “Commitments”, where text, e.g., sentences from a plurality of sentences, is displayed “yes, I will send you the agreement tomorrow”, which is also displayed in user interface 206.
and ¶ [0078]: “The user may click on a word or phrase in the list to view instances of the word or phrase in the meetings. In particular, portion 308 includes a module 312 representing an instance of the “I will” phrase. Module 312 includes a range of time (“2:56-3:02”) spanned by a sentence that includes the phrase (“yes, I will send you the agreement tomorrow”), as well as the meeting (“Meeting 2”) in which the phrase is found. Module 312 also includes a number of other user-interface elements, such as a button 314 that allows the user to play the portion of the meeting's recording that contains the sentence, another button 316 that allows the user to modify the sentence, and/or a rating 318 representing the level of confidence in the prediction of the phrase and/or sentence.”
Here, the examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “expanded content visualization” associated with a thumbnail (e.g., play button image) includes highlighting information relevant to the current exploration state, e.g., including a textual representation of a transcript sentence.);
receiving a user event associated with the first visualization via the GUI (see Fig. 3A-B and ¶ [0075]: e.g., the screen of FIG. 3B may be shown after the user clicks on the “Commitments” category within the user interface of FIG. 3A, searches for the category, and/or otherwise navigates to the screen from another portion of user interface 206” and ¶ [0078]: Fig. 3B, the user can click on words or phrases, and can also click on the buttons for “Meeting 1” and “Meeting 2”);
Here, the examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “user event” includes a user clicking an interactive element of the interface.);
modifying a first parameter selection associated with the plurality of parameters based on the user event to generate a modified parameter selection (see Fig. 3B: user clicks on the “I will” phrase to generate a new portion, e.g., modifying the list of phrases in portion 308 by selecting a phrase for more information, that shows “a range of time (“2:56-3:02”) spanned by a sentence that includes the phrase (“yes, I will send you the agreement tomorrow”), as well as the meeting (“Meeting 2”) in which the phrase is found”, ¶ [0078]: modified parameter selection;
Here, the examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “parameter selection” includes the selection of a parameter from a list.); and
However, Wiener et al. fails to explicitly teach but Wang et al. teaches:
determining that the first transcript sentence is unrelated to the modified parameter selection (see Figs. 25, 29-31 (example process, which may be performed by a messaging application / user interface based on conversations with a user) and ¶ [0195-0196]: “[0195] Referring back to FIG. 29, the messaging application 240 may overlay a size-reduced two-dimensional representation on another user interface at 2908. The two-dimensional table 3002 as shown in FIG. 30 presents the user useful information and attributes associated with the conversations and allows the user to reorganize the attributes of the conversations. However, the two-dimensional table 3002 may be relatively large, taking up too much screen space. Hence, the messaging application 240 may provide a size-reduced version of the two-dimensional table 3002 in response to a user input. The user input may be provided by selecting an icon 2530 [i.e., modified parameter selection] as shown in FIG. 25. [0196] FIG. 31 illustrates a size-reduced version 3102 of the two-dimensional table 3002. As shown in FIG. 31, the size-reduced table 3102 is overlaid on another user interface 3104. Like the two-dimensional table 3002, the size-reduced table 3102 may comprise a number indicating unread conversations in a cell. The size-reduced table 3102 may also have different colors in different cells indicative of different status of associated tasks. Similar to the cells in the two-dimensional table 3002, each cell in the size-reduced table 3102 is also a selectable button by which the conversations can be filtered based on the corresponding topic and Mention attributes. The size-reduced two-dimensional table allows the table to be overlaid on a UI so that the user can reference the table while using the UI. The reduced size can be predetermined based on screen size or defined by a user, e.g., by selecting and resizing the table directly or by entering size dimensions into a form.”);
PNG
media_image1.png
504
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
464
768
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
486
740
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs. 25, 30-31 from Wang et al. Colored enclosures added for discussion purposes by the Examiner. Here, the green enclosure represents a user input or selected icon (i.e., this reads on modified parameter selection), blue enclosure represents the 2D table with user information (i.e., this reads on first thumbnail images associated with transcript sentence(s)) and the red enclosure represents the size-reduced version of the 2D table with user information (i.e., which reads on a reduced-resolution version of first thumbnail).
and in response, displaying a first compressed content visualization comprising a thumbnail image associated with[[of]] the first transcript sentence instead of the first expanded content visualization within the GUI based on the modified parameter selection, wherein the first compressed content visualization includes a first reduced-resolution version of the first thumbnail image (see Figs. 25, 29-31 (example process, which may be performed by a messaging application / user interface based on conversations with a user) and ¶ [0195-0196] citations as in limitation above. Here, the provid[ing] a size-reduced version of the two-dimensional table 3002 in response to a user input reads on the limitation as drafted.).
Wiener et al. and Wang et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in multi-message transcript processing/analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present application to have modified Wiener et al. to incorporate the teachings of Wang of determining that the first transcript sentence is unrelated to the modified parameter selection; and in response, displaying a first compressed content visualization associated with the first transcript sentence instead of the first expanded content visualization within the GUI based on the modified parameter selection, wherein the first compressed content visualization includes a first reduced-resolution version of the first thumbnail image which provides the benefit of improving the efficiency of exchanging information (¶ [0160] of Wang et al.).
As to independent claim 11, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the limitations as in independent claim 1, above.
Wiener et al. further teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer readable media including instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (Fig. 1, memory 130 storing interactive virtual meeting assistant 132, e.g. software instructions, executed by processor 120; ¶ 0016-0017; “computer readable medium” includes physical medium, that stores programs for execution by a processor; ¶ 0115-0117)
The remaining limitations in claim 11 correspond to the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and therefore claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
As to independent claim 20, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the limitations as in independent claim 1, above.
Wiener et al. further teaches:
A system comprising: (e.g., Fig. 1, system 100; ¶ 0016)
one or more memories storing instructions; and (Fig. 1, memory 130 storing interactive virtual meeting assistant 132, e.g. software instructions; ¶ 0016-0017; “computer readable medium” includes physical medium, that stores programs for execution by a processor; ¶ 0115-0117)
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories that, when executing the instructions, perform the steps of: (Fig. 1, processor 120 processes program code from memory 130; ¶ 0017-0018; “computer readable medium” includes physical medium, that stores programs for execution by a processor; ¶ 0115-0117)
The remaining limitations in claim 20 correspond to the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and therefore claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Wiener et al. further discloses:
wherein the plurality of parameters comprises a plurality of attendees or a plurality of topics. (e.g., Fig. 3A, “Meeting Attendees” category, which like the “Commitments” example of Fig. 3B, would lead to additional menus with respect to individual attendees at each meeting; ¶ 0074; the categories of Fig. 3A also represent topics; ¶ 0065, 0074; threading engine 202 generates threads representing common topics 222; ¶ 0037, 0052)
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 11.
Wiener et al. further discloses:
wherein the plurality of parameters comprises a plurality of topics, and (threading engine 202 generates threads representing common topics 222; ¶ 0037, 0052)
further comprising computing a plurality of frequencies of a plurality of terms occurring in the plurality of transcript sentences to determine the plurality of topics. (topics 222 are selected by threading engine 202 based on confidence scores that exceed a threshold; ¶ 0052; term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF) metrics with respect to scoring search results; ¶ 0067-0068;
Here, the examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computing a plurality of frequencies” includes utilizing the TF-IDF algorithm.)
Regarding claim 6, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Wiener et al. further discloses:
executing at least one of a word normalization algorithm or a text normalization algorithm on at least a second transcript sentence included in the plurality of transcript sentences to determine that the second transcript sentence includes an inflection of a topic specified in the modified parameter selection; and (see ¶ 0038, 0048: e.g., threading engine 202 converts transcripts of recorded meetings, including first and second sentences, into indexes 208 and list of term 210, and ¶ 0051-0052: indexes 208 are grouped after performing stemming, semantic analysis, and/or lemmatization of terms 210, e.g., “budgets”, “budgeting” and “budgeted” are inflections of “budget” and all relate to the same “budget” topic;;
Here, the examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a word normalization algorithm or a text normalization algorithm” includes a stemming algorithm to determine a word stem and its inflection.)
displaying a second expanded content visualization of the second transcript sentence within the GUI. (see e.g., Fig. 3A, clicking on any category in portion 3A views additional information related to the category, e.g., a second expanded content visualization, similar to the examine in Fig. 3B with respect to the “Commitments” category; ¶ 0074-0078, Figs. 3A and 3B)
Regarding claim 8, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Wiener et al. further discloses:
wherein the first expanded content visualization comprises at least one of a textual representation of the first transcript sentence, (e.g., Fig. 3B, an in-depth visualization of the “Commitments” category, e.g., expanded content visualization, includes the sentence “yes, I will send you the agreement tomorrow”, e.g., textual representation of the first transcript sentence; ¶ 0075, 0078) a representation of a speaker associated with the first transcript sentence, . (Fig. 3B, button 314 enabling a user to play the portion of the meeting recording that plays the sentence, e.g., graphical widget that enables playback of at least one of a sound bite clip corresponding to the first transcript sentence; ¶ [0078]; the examiner notes that the limitations set forth in this claim 8 are claimed in the alternative, so that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, only a single alternative needs to be met)
Regarding claim 9, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Wiener et al. further discloses:
prior to receiving the user event: (see ¶ 0074-0075 e.g., at any point in time prior to the user clicking on the “Commitments” category of Fig. 3A or any of the phrases within Fig. 3B;)
generating a temporal word cloud based on a plurality of topics associated with the recorded meeting data and the plurality of transcript sentences; and (¶ 0061: user interface 206 outputs representations, including a “word cloud” related to summary 242; ¶ 0059: summary 242 comprises temporally-related meeting snippets.
Here, the examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “temporal word cloud” includes a word cloud is a visualization for a particular period of time and Wiener et al. discloses a “word cloud” related to a summary for a particular set of temporally-related meeting snippets, e.g., a particular period of time.)
displaying the temporal word cloud within the GUI. (¶ 0061: word cloud is displayed as a visualization within user interface 206)
Regarding claim 10, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Wiener et al. further discloses:
wherein the recorded meeting data is associated with a plurality of meetings, and further comprising: (¶ 0025, 0038 and Fig. 3B audio recordings of meetings are recorded and transcribed; ¶ 0076: showing data with respect to meetings 1-3, e.g., plurality of meetings)
modifying a second visualization of the plurality of meetings that is displayed within the GUI based on the modified parameter selection and the plurality of transcript sentences to generate a modified second visualization; and (e.g., Fig. 3B and ¶ 0075-0078: user clicks on “I will” phrase and can perform modifications to phrase using button 316; ¶ 0075-0078: drop-down row pertaining to “I will” is modified and displayed within the user interface 206, e.g., drop-down row is a modified second visualization with respect to meeting 2 in the plurality of meetings.)
displaying the modified second visualization within the GUI. (¶ 0075-0078: drop-down row with respect to “I will” is displayed in user interface 206;)
Regarding claim 12, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the non-transitory computer readable media of claim 11.
Wiener et al. further discloses:
wherein the modified parameter selection specifies a subset of a plurality of topics or a subset of a plurality of attendees. (e.g., Fig. 3B, user clicks on the “I will” phrase to generate a new portion specific to a the “I will” “commitment, e.g., a subset of the topics within the Commitments category; the examiner notes that the this claim limitation claims alternative limitations, and therefore under the broadest reasonable interpretation, only a single alternative needs to be met)
Regarding claim 16, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 11.
Wiener et al. further discloses:
executing at least one of a word normalization algorithm or a text normalization algorithm on at least a second transcript sentence included in the plurality of transcript sentences (e.g., ¶ 0038, 0048: threading engine 202 converts transcripts of recorded meetings, including first and second sentences, into indexes 208 and list of term 210;; ¶ 0051-0052: indexes 208 are grouped after performing stemming, semantic analysis, and/or lemmatization of terms 210, e.g., “budgets”, “budgeting” and “budgeted” are inflections of “budget” and all relate to the same “budget” topic) to determine that the second transcript sentence is not associated with the modified parameter selection; and (e.g., Fig. 3B, the second sentence is the sentence associated with “can you”, which is not associated to a selection of “I will”, as indicated by the different entries in indexes 208; ¶ 0075-0078)
displaying a second compressed content visualization of the second transcript sentence within the GUI . (e.g., Fig. 3B, snippets “can you”, “committed”, “I got it”, and “you will” parameter selections hide the full sentences, e.g., second transcript sentences, related to such parameters, e.g., they are rows that hide information, e.g., compressed content visualization, where such rows remain hidden based on the user’s selection of the “I will” parameter; the examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “compressed content visualization” includes a visualization that hides or filters information that is not relevant to the current state, e.g., when looking at “I will”, the other statements during Meeting 2 are not relevant.)
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener et al. (US 20190074987 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20220027559 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11, above and further in view of Li et al. (US 20200380074 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 11.
Wiener et al. further discloses:
wherein the plurality of parameters comprises a plurality of topics, and (¶ 0037, 0052: threading engine 202 generates threads representing common topics 222;)
However, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. fails to explicitly teach but Li et al. teaches:
wherein generating the first visualization comprises generating a plurality of charts based on the plurality of topics and the plurality of transcript sentences, (see ¶ 0057-0058, Fig. 4: discloses creating and displaying line charts showing trending keywords; Li et al.)
wherein each chart included in the plurality of charts depicts a prevalence of a different topic included in the plurality of topics over a period of time associated with the recorded meeting data. (see ¶ 0057-0058, Fig. 4: discloses line charts showing trending keywords with respect to number of occurrences of the keywords over a period of time (e.g., July 1-4).)
Wiener et al., Wang et al., and Li et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in multi-message conversation processing/analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present application to have modified Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. to incorporate the teachings of Li et al. of wherein generating the first visualization comprises generating a plurality of charts based on the plurality of topics and the plurality of transcript sentences, wherein each chart included in the plurality of charts depicts a prevalence of a different topic included in the plurality of topics over a period of time associated with the recorded meeting data which provides the benefit of detecting technical support issues as they arise, e.g., for meetings relating to product development, etc. (¶ 0024 of Li et al.).
12. Claims 5, 7, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener et al. (US 20190074987 A1) in view of of Wang et al. (US 20220027559 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11, above and further in view of Peters et al. (US 20210185276 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wiener et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1.
Wiener et al. further discloses:
wherein the plurality of parameters comprises a plurality of attendees, (see e.g., Fig. 3A, “Meeting Attendees” category, which like the “Commitments” example of Fig. 3B, would lead to additional menus with respect to individual attendees at each meeting; and ¶ 0074) and wherein generating the first visualization comprises: (¶ 0084: “aggregation engine 204 may display timelines, charts, visualizations, and/or other graphical representations of the summary and insights in a user interface, such as user interface 206 of FIG. 2”; see also ¶ 0061, referencing output visualizations in user interface 206)
However, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. fails to explicitly teach but Peters et al. teaches:
computing a plurality of speaking times based on the plurality of attendees and the plurality of transcript sentences; and (Peters et al. relates to managing video conference and other communications sessions. (¶ 0002). Peters et al. discloses tracking statistics about speaking time for different videoconference participants, and displaying such statistics via a chart or graph. (¶ 0267, 300). Fig. 9B shows an example of a bar-chart-like indicator that indicates how much speaking time a participant has used. (¶ 0307). Figs. 11A and 11B show examples of pie charts showing the speaking time amongst speakers. (¶ 0313).
Peters et al. also discloses a system that can analyze offline recordings of video conferences; Peters et al., ¶ 0200; Peters et al. further discloses tracking speaking time for videoconference participants, and displaying such statistics via a chart or graph; Peters et al., ¶ 0267, 300, 307 and Figs. 9 and 11A-B)
generating at least one chart based on the plurality of speaking times. (the Wiener et al. - Peters et al. combination now generates and displays charts concerning the meeting participant speaker times as disclosed in Peters et al. ¶ 0267, 300, 307 and Figs. 9 and 11A-B)
Wiener et al., Wang et al., and Peters et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in multi-message conversation processing/analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present application to have modified Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. to incorporate the teachings of Peters et al. of computing a plurality of speaking times based on the plurality of attendees and the plurality of transcript sentences; and generating at least one chart based on the plurality of speaking times which provides the benefit of providing metrics about which individuals need to be drawn more into the conversation, and which individuals need to speak less. (¶ 0211 of Peters et al.).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Wiener et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1 and the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 11.
Wiener et al. further discloses:
determining that a second transcript sentence included in the plurality of transcript sentences was spoken by an attendee; and (¶ 0023: metadata for meeting records tracks the speaker of the individual words, phrases, and sentences at the meeting, e.g., first and second sentences within a meeting transcript;)
displaying a second expanded content visualization of the second transcript sentence within the GUI. (see ¶ 0078 and Fig. 3B, expanding the “we will” row to reveal additional information, including a full sentence, meeting ID, buttons 314 and 316, and rating 318)
However, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. fails to explicitly teach but Peters et al. teaches:
determining that a second transcript sentence included in the plurality of transcript sentences was spoken by an attendee specified in the modified parameter selection (Peters et al. discloses performing speech recognition to determine and associate words with a participant in ¶ 0154; Peters et al. further discloses associating thumbnails with participants; Peters et al. , ¶ 0299-0300)
Wiener et al., Wang et al., and Peters et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in multi-message conversation processing/analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present application to have modified Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. to incorporate the teachings of Peters et al. of determining that a second transcript sentence included in the plurality of transcript sentences was spoken by an attendee specified in the modified parameter selection which provides the benefit of providing metrics about which individuals need to be drawn more into the conversation, and which individuals need to speak less. (¶ 0211 of Peters et al.).
Regarding claim 15, Wiener et al. discloses the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 11. Wiener et al. further discloses:
wherein the plurality of parameters comprises a plurality of topics, (see ¶ 0037, 0052: threading engine 202 generates threads representing common topics 222;)
However, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. fails to explicitly teach but Peters et al. teaches:
the modified parameter selection specifies a subset of the plurality of topics, and further comprising: (see ¶ 0214-0216: monitoring the engagement of speakers with respect to specific topics, slides, or content being discussed.)
computing a plurality of per-topic speaking times based on a plurality of attendees, the subset of the plurality of topics, and the plurality of transcript sentences; and (see ¶ 0200: a system that can analyze offline recordings of video conferences; Peters et al. further discloses ¶ 0267, 300, 307 and Figs. 9 and 11A-B: tracking speaking time for videoconference participants, and displaying such statistics via a chart or graph, e.g., by using the timestamp and time range data collected )
displaying a second visualization that depicts the plurality of per-topic speaking times within the GUI. (see ¶ 0200: a system that can analyze offline recordings of video conferences; Peters et al. further discloses ¶ 0267, 300, 307 and Figs. 9 and 11A-B: tracking speaking time for videoconference participants, and displaying such statistics via a chart or graph, e.g., by using the timestamp and time range data collected)
Wiener et al., Wang et al., and Peters et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in multi-message conversation processing/analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present application to have modified Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. to incorporate the teachings of Peters et al. of the modified parameter selection specifies a subset of the plurality of topics, and further comprising: computing a plurality of per-topic speaking times based on a plurality of attendees, the subset of the plurality of topics, and the plurality of transcript sentences; and displaying a second visualization that depicts the plurality of per-topic speaking times within the GUI which provides the benefit of providing metrics about which individuals need to be drawn more into the conversation, and which individuals need to speak less. (¶ 0211 of Peters et al.).
Regarding claim 18, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 11.
Wiener et al. further discloses:
generating a plurality of compressed content visualizations (e.g., Fig. 3B, snippets “can you”, “committed”, “I got it”, and “you will” parameter selections hide the full sentences related to such parameters, e.g., they are rows that hide information, e.g., compressed content visualization, where such rows remain hidden based on the user’s selection of the “I will” parameter; the examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “compressed content visualization” includes a visualization that hides or filters information that is not relevant to the current state, e.g., when looking at “I will”, the other statements during Meeting 2 are not relevant) based on a plurality of audio-video recordings included the recorded meeting data; and (audio and/or video is captured and recordings during meetings; ¶ 0022)
However, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. fails to explicitly teach but Peters et al. teaches:
identifying the first compressed content visualization from the plurality of compressed content visualizations based on a first timestamp associated with the first transcript sentence. (Peters et al. discloses tracking meeting participant speaking time and synchronizing data on participants with respect to timestamps; Peters et al., ¶ 0474)
Wiener et al., Wang et al., and Peters et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in multi-message conversation processing/analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present application to have modified Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. to incorporate the teachings of Peters et al. of identifying the first compressed content visualization from the plurality of compressed content visualizations based on a first timestamp associated with the first transcript sentence which provides the benefit of providing metrics about which individuals need to be drawn more into the conversation, and which individuals need to speak less. (¶ 0211 of Peters et al.).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener et al. (US 20190074987 A1) in view of of Wang et al. (US 20220027559 A1) as applied to claim 11, above and further in view of MacDougall (US 20200356604 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 11.
However, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. fails to explicitly teach but MacDougall teaches:
modifying a temporal word cloud that is displayed within the GUI based on the modified parameter selection to generate a modified temporal word cloud; and (pertains to computerized information systems for sharing and accessing information on a subject. (¶ 0002). Fig. 2 illustrates a visual interface including a word cloud for a question-and-answer system, where if a user selects a certain question or answer for further analysis, the word cloud is updated to highlight those words that are most relevant. (¶ 0043); Fig. 2, discloses a visual interface with a word cloud that is updated, e.g., modified, in view of a user selection; MacDougall et al., ¶ 0043; Wiener et al. discloses that user interface 206 outputs a “word cloud” related to summary 242, which is passed on temporally-related snippets, e.g., temporal word cloud; )
displaying the modified temporal word cloud within the GUI. (¶ 0043 and Fig. 2; …a visual interface with a word cloud that is updated, e.g., modified, in view of a user selection)
Wiener et al., Wang et al., and MacDougall are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in multi-message conversation processing/analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present application to have modified Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. to incorporate the teachings of MacDougall of modifying a temporal word cloud that is displayed within the GUI based on the modified parameter selection to generate a modified temporal word cloud; and displaying the modified temporal word cloud within the GUI which provides the benefit of make a word cloud interactive, so that such word cloud can be adjusted as the user interacts with the system to better show the relevance of certain terms and related information (¶ 0043 of MacDougall).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener et al. (US 20190074987 A1) in view of Wang et al. (US 20220027559 A1) as applied to claim 1, above and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20150346975 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. disclose the one or more non-transitory computer readable media of claim 1.
Wang et al. further teaches:
21. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising
displaying a second compressed content visualization associated with a second transcript sentence (see Figs. 25, 29-31 (example process, which may be performed by a messaging application / user interface based on conversations with a user) and ¶ [0195-0196] citations as in limitation above. Here, the provid[ing] a size-reduced version of the two-dimensional table 3002 in response to a user input reads on the limitation as drafted. Also, the two-dimensional table is associated with multiple users and their corresponding interactions (i.e., transcript sentences).),
the second compressed content visualization being set equal to a portion of a second thumbnail image associated with the second transcript sentence (see Figs. 25, 29-31 (example process, which may be performed by a messaging application / user interface based on conversations with a user) and ¶ [0195-0196] citations as in limitation above. Here, the provid[ing] a size-reduced version (portion) of the two-dimensional table 3002 in response to a user input reads on the limitation as drafted. Also, as mentioned above, the two-dimensional table is associated with multiple users and their corresponding interactions (i.e., transcript sentences).),
Wiener et al. and Wang et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in multi-message transcript processing/analysis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present application to have modified Wiener et al. to incorporate the teachings of Wang et al. of displaying a second compressed content visualization associated with a second transcript sentence, the second compressed content visualization being set equal to a portion of a second thumbnail image associated with the second transcript sentence which provides the benefit of improving the efficiency of exchanging information (¶ [0160] of Wang et al.).
However, Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. fails to explicitly teach but Lee et al. teaches:
the portion having a color that is equal to an average color of the second thumbnail image (see ¶ [0011]: “The second display scheme may be a scheme of displaying thumbnail images in a block form having a color corresponding to an average value of pixel values included in thumbnail images displayed in the second display scheme.”).
Wiener et al., Wang et al., and Lee et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor in multi-message/text procession and/or visualization. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the present application to have modified Wiener et al. in combination with Wang et al. to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. of the portion having a color that is equal to an average color of the second thumbnail image which provides the benefit of allowing the display apparatus to classify and easily search for a plurality of contents depending on a category (¶ 0003 of Lee et al.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Keisha Y Castillo-Torres whose telephone number is (571)272-3975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm (EST).
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached on (571)272-7799. 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.
Keisha Y. Castillo-Torres
Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/Keisha Y. Castillo-Torres/Examiner, Art Unit 2659
/PIERRE LOUIS DESIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2659
Prosecution Insights