DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9 are amended. Claims 4, 6, 8, 18, and 21 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-17, 19-20, and 22-23 are pending in the application.
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 .
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.
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “the occasion” (line 13) should have been –the class—.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9 inherit the features of claim 1 and are objected to accordingly.
Appropriate corrections are required. Applicant is advised to review the entire claims for further needed corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10-12, 14-16, 19, 21, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seligmann et al. (US 2014/0222907 A1; hereinafter Seligmann) in view of Narges et al. (US 10,270,784 B1; hereinafter Narges) and Petersen et al. (US 2012/0066302 A1; hereinafter Petersen).
With respect to claim 10, Seligmann teaches: A method, comprising:
under control of one or more processors (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 19: “a processor”) configured with executable instructions (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 32: “storing and/or providing instructions to a processor for execution”);
obtaining from a memory (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 64: “contextual information, or information used to infer the context, may be gathered from sources such as… Through analytic models and inference from other information (e.g., caller ID or other terminal identifier, email address, name, conference code, etc.)”; and paragraph 32: “"computer-readable medium" as used herein refers to any tangible storage and/or transmission medium that participates in storing and/or providing instructions to a processor for execution”) or from a sensor (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 59: “Contextual information may include an identity… verifiable by use of external data sources (e.g., comparing voice samples… Contextual information may include a state of presence of a participant”; and paragraph 64: “contextual information, or information used to infer the context, may be gathered from sources such as: 1) Directly from the user, such as… observation of interactions of users with other users or the electronic environment… 3) Through analytic models and inference from other information… inferring that someone is in car based on a speed of changing location”) of a primary electronic device (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 19: “a conference server”; and paragraph 28) context awareness information (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 18: “collecting contextual information related to at least one of the user and resources needed by the electronic conference”; and paragraph 64: “Contextual information may be gathered”);
Since Seligmann discloses gathering context information based on voice, participant’s presence, observing interactions of users, and/or speed, Seligmann inherently discloses sensors to obtain such context information (e.g. audio sensors to obtain voice samples, sensors to observe user interactions, etc.).
in response to obtaining the context awareness information (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 56: “contextual information may be used”; and paragraph 86: “context information may be accessed at this point”), determining, with the one or more processors, a software [application] (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 56: “resources used by the electronic conference”; paragraph 50: “resources used by a meeting, such as a calendar, stored docs, and live communications”; paragraph 62: “resources participants use (e.g., documents)”; paragraph 66: “conference resources, such as access to participant schedules, documents related to the electronic conference, control of and/or access to the documents”; and paragraph 86: “determine what resources are needed”) associated with an occasion (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 50: “resources used by a meeting, such as a calendar, stored docs, and live communications”; paragraph 62: “resources participants use (e.g., documents)”; paragraph 66: “conference resources, such as access to participant schedules, documents related to the electronic conference, control of and/or access to the documents”; and paragraph 86: “resources are needed by the user and/or by the electronic conference. For example, the electronic conference may need a conference bridge and related communication resources, and a user may need access to certain documents or communicative access to certain other participants of the electronic conference”) where a user of the primary electronic device provides data or information (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 19: “an electronic conference hosted by a conference server”) to a group of users (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 19: “one or more participants of the electronic conference”) that have auxiliary electronic devices (see e.g. Seligmann, Fig. 1: “External Comm. Device 112”; paragraph 33: “an enterprise network 104 that is in communication, via a (typically untrusted or unsecure or public) communication network 108, with one or more external communication devices 112”; and paragraph 85: “electronic conferencing system receives a request from a user to participate in an electronic conference. The electronic conference may be hosted by a system such as system 100… The user may communicate with system 100 via external communication device 112”) in real time based on the context awareness information (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 56: “contextual information may be used to determine improved methods and channels to deliver information related to an electronic conference. The information may include... resources used by the electronic conference”; and paragraph 86: “context information may be accessed at this point (not illustrated in FIG. 2) in order to help determine what resources are needed. For example, context information may help determine a scope of document access that is needed by a user, or communication modes that a user will need”);
identifying, with the one or more processors (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraphs 18-19, 28), an auxiliary electronic device (see e.g. Seligmann, Fig. 1: “External Comm. Device 112”) of the auxiliary electronic devices (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 33: “one or more external communication devices 112”; and paragraph 85: “electronic conferencing system receives a request from a user to participate in an electronic conference. The electronic conference may be hosted by a system such as system 100… The user may communicate with system 100 via external communication device 112”) within a physical region having physical boundaries of the occasion (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 51: “a place-based communication tool that is accessed primarily through a mobile device and facilitates voice calls and text chat. "Place-based" refers to a physical space created by a group of people that have a shared context of that place (e.g., different parts of a workspace in a physical building, such as the machine shop, cafe, etc.). When a user calls any of these places, such systems may route their calls to all people who are "checked-in" to the place”);
communicating with the auxiliary electronic device with a transceiver (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 31) of the primary electronic device to determine whether the auxiliary electronic device has the software [application] associated with the occasion (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 19: “resource conflict is determined by the processor based upon: resources needed by one or more participants of the electronic conference”; paragraph 87: “determine if there is contention among the needed resources”; paragraph 88: “information may be collected… regarding the electronic conference, participants of the electronic conference, and/or resources used by the electronic conference”; paragraph 89: “information collected at step 208… is used by a processor (not necessarily the same processor as used in earlier steps of process 200) in order to attempt to mitigate resource contentions”; and Fig. 2, steps 206, 208) in response to identifying the auxiliary electronic device within the physical region (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 85: “an electronic conferencing system receives a request from a user to participate in an electronic conference”; paragraph 51; and Fig. 2, steps 202-208);
providing a notification (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 19: “receiving an alert”) with an output circuit of the primary electronic device (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 53: “A host, for example, may have a special role with respect to getting alerts”) or a transceiver of the primary electronic device (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 53: “A host, for example, may have a special role with respect to getting alerts”) that the auxiliary electronic device does not have the software [application] in response to determining the electronic device does not have the software [application] (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 19: “receiving an alert related to a resource conflict of the electronic conference, wherein the resource conflict is determined by the processor based upon: resources needed by one or more participants of the electronic conference; resources needed by the electronic conference”; paragraphs 86-88; and claim 28: “inferring unavailability of a resource based upon contextual information; and providing an alert to a predetermined user, the alert based upon the inferred unavailability of the resource”);
Seligmann discloses a host system that identifies necessary software resources (e.g. documents used by participants, communication channels used by the participants, etc.) for an electronic meeting (such as an electronic conference or a class), and determines if there are any resource conflicts, including determining availability of software resources needed by the participants. Seligmann further discloses providing alerts/notifications to the host (i.e. the primary device) and/or the participants (i.e. the auxiliary devices) when a software resource conflict is detected, including detecting an unavailability of a required software resource.
However, even though Seligmann discloses identifying software resources required for an electronic meeting and determining availability of such software resources, Seligmann does not explicitly disclose such software resources including “applications” and/or automatically installing such applications on the external communication devices.
On the other hand, Narges teaches:
application (see e.g. Narges, column 8, lines 14-15: “review the application inventory to determine if any required applications are missing”)
automatically instructing, with the primary electronic device, the auxiliary electronic device to install the software application onto the auxiliary electronic device in response to determining the auxiliary electronic device does not have the software application (see e.g. Narges, column 8, lines 14-17: “review the application inventory to determine if any required applications are missing from the user device 12. The DMS 10 may act to install applications that are required for use”); and
installing, with the auxiliary electronic device, the software application in response to determining the auxiliary electronic device does not have the software application (see e.g. Narges, column 8, lines 14-17: “The DMS 10 may act to install applications that are required for use”).
Seligmann and Narges are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing resources for electronic devices based on environmental context. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seligmann with the teachings of Narges. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve resource management capabilities (see Narges, column 1, lines 50-60; column 6, lines 51-62).
Furthermore, even though Seligmann discloses implementing “place-based” communications for an occasion (e.g. a conference, a class, etc.) that is within a physical environment (e.g. a physical building) encompassing the physical region (e.g. a workspace, a machine shop, or a café within the building) for the occasion (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 51), Seligmann does not explicitly disclose identifying the one or more external communication devices 112 as a “subset” of the external communication devices within the physical environment.
However, Petersen teaches:
wherein the auxiliary electronic devices (see e.g. Petersen, paragraph 24: “a number of mobile devices 18-1 through 18-N (generally referred to herein collectively as mobile devices 18 and individually as mobile device 18) having associated users 20-1 through 20-N (generally referred to herein collectively as users 20 and individually as user 20”) identified represent a subset of auxiliary electronic devices within a physical environment that encompasses the physical region (see e.g. Petersen, paragraph 59: “crowd analyzer 58 then determines the individual users and crowds relevant to the combined bounding region created in step 1210 (step 1212). The crowds relevant to the combined bounding region are crowds that are within or overlap the combined bounding region (e.g., have at least one user located within the combined bounding region, have all users located within the combined bounding region, or have crowd centers located within the combined bounding region). The individual users relevant to the combined bounding region are users that are currently located within the combined bounding region”; and claim 9: “performing the spatial crowd formation process for the bounding region based on the current locations of a subset of the plurality of users within the bounding region to thereby form the crowd including the number of users”);
Seligmann and Petersen are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: place-based detection of devices associated with a point-of-interest (e.g. an occasion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seligmann with the teachings of Petersen. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve the place-based communication mechanism (see e.g. Petersen, paragraph 4).
With respect to claim 11, Seligmann as modified teaches: The method of claim 10,
Seligmann does not but Narges teaches:
further comprising automatically obtaining the software application at the auxiliary electronic device with one or more processors of the auxiliary electronic device in response to determining the auxiliary electronic device does not have the software application (see e.g. Narges, column 8, lines 14-17: “review the application inventory to determine if any required applications are missing from the user device 12. The DMS 10 may act to install applications that are required for use”).
Seligmann and Narges are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing resources for electronic devices based on environmental context. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seligmann with the teachings of Narges. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve resource management capabilities (see Narges, column 1, lines 50-60; column 6, lines 51-62).
With respect to claim 12, Seligmann as modified teaches: The method of claim 10, wherein providing the notification that the auxiliary electronic device does not have the software application includes providing the notification on a display of the auxiliary electronic device (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 19: “receiving an alert related to a resource conflict of the electronic conference, wherein the resource conflict is determined by the processor based upon: resources needed by one or more participants of the electronic conference; resources needed by the electronic conference”).
With respect to claim 14, Seligmann as modified teaches: The method of claim 10, wherein identifying the electronic device is within the physical region includes forming a geofence around the physical region (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 51: “”Place-based" refers to a physical space created by a group of people that have a shared context of that place”), and detecting when the auxiliary electronic device is within the geofence (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 51: “"Place-based" refers to a physical space created by a group of people that have a shared context of that place”; paragraph 52: “provide a presence-based or event-triggered "instant conferencing solutions," such that once the required participants are present and available, a communication session is established and the participants are connected to it”).
With respect to claim 15, Seligmann as modified teaches: The method of claim 10, wherein identifying the auxiliary electronic device within the physical region includes determining the auxiliary electronic device is connected to a determined network (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 59: “Contextual information may include a state of presence of a participant, identification of communication channels used by the participant, current activities (e.g., whether the participant is already connected to the electronic conference)”; and paragraph 52).
With respect to claims 16, 19, and 20: Claims 16, 19, and 20 are directed to a computer program product comprising a non-signal computer readable storage medium comprising computer executable code to perform active functions corresponding the method disclosed in claims 1, 15, and 14, respectively; please see the rejections directed to claims 1, 15, and 14 above which also cover the limitations recited in claims 16, 19, and 20. Note that, Seligmann also discloses a computer-readable medium comprising program instructions to perform active functions corresponding the method disclosed in claims 1, 15, and 14 (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 32).
With respect to claim 22, Seligmann as modified teaches: The method of claim 10, wherein determining, with the one or more processors, the software application includes selecting the software application from learning- based applications (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 7: “Early virtual environment systems, built upon multimedia conferencing technology of the time, such as "PERSYST" (a virtual room platform and distance-learning environment)”).
With respect to claim 23, Seligmann as modified teaches: The method of claim 10, wherein identifying the auxiliary electronic device includes geofencing (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 51: “”Place-based" refers to a physical space created by a group of people that have a shared context of that place”) to provide a boundary of a classroom to be the physical environment (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 51: “"Place-based" refers to a physical space created by a group of people that have a shared context of that place”; paragraph 52: “provide a presence-based or event-triggered "instant conferencing solutions," such that once the required participants are present and available, a communication session is established and the participants are connected to it”; and paragraph 8: “classrooms”).
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seligmann in view of Narges and Petersen as applied to claims 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Pierce et al. (US 2015/0094093 A1; hereinafter Pierce).
With respect to claim 13, Seligmann as modified teaches: The method of claim 10, wherein determining the software application associated with the occasion includes analyzing, with the one or more processors of the primary electronic device, the context awareness data… to determine the software application (see e.g. Seligmann, paragraph 56: “contextual information may be used to determine improved methods and channels to deliver information related to an electronic conference. The information may include an alert, resources used by the electronic conference, particularized communication channels to communicatively connect subsets of the participants of the electronic conference based upon a shared characteristic, etc.”; and paragraph 86: “context information may be accessed at this point (not illustrated in FIG. 2) in order to help determine what resources are needed. For example, context information may help determine a scope of document access that is needed by a user, or communication modes that a user will need”);
Seligmann does not but Pierce teaches:
with an artificial intelligence algorithm (see e.g. Pierce, paragraph 152: “context-determination module 512 can determine the contextual information 203, the future context 204, or a combination thereof using a machine-learning mechanism”)
wherein analyzing the context awareness information with the artificial intelligence algorithm includes determining a pattern associated with the auxiliary electronic device (see e.g. Pierce, paragraph 156: “context-determination module 512 perform the pattern analysis to determine a professional context, such as commuting to work or meeting a client, or a social context, such as going home or visiting a social contact, or a combination thereof”)
Seligmann and Pierce are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing resources associated with an occasion based on contextual information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Seligmann with the teachings of Pierce. The motivation/suggestion would be to utilize a trained model to assist in contextual analysis; thus increasing the overall processing efficiency.
With respect to claim 17: Claim 17 is directed to a computer program product comprising a non-signal computer readable storage medium comprising computer executable code to perform active functions corresponding the method disclosed in claim 13; please see the rejection directed to claim 13 above which also covers the limitations recited in claim 17.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In detail:
(i) Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10 and 16 (Remarks, page 12), the Examiner notes that the limitations recited in claim 1 are not present in claims 10 and/or 16. More specifically, claim 1 discloses a “learning-based application” associated with a “class”, identifies devices within physical boundaries of a “classroom”, determines if the “learning-based application” for the “class” is not installed on the devices within the “classroom”, and installs the “learning-based application” to the devices within the “classroom”. However, these features are not present in claims 10 and 16. As such, the rejections directed to claims 10, 16, and their dependent claims are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not explicitly disclose identifying an auxiliary electronic device within a classroom having physical boundaries of a class as a subset of auxiliary electronic devices, determining absence of a learning-based application on the identified auxiliary electronic device, and installing the determined learning-based application onto the identified auxiliary electronic device as recited in claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Armand et al. (US 2018/0293059 A1) discloses automatic installation applications on a mobile device based on location of the mobile device, wherein the applications process virtual classroom education workloads (see paragraphs 50, 51, 87).
Whorley, Jr. et al. (US 2015/0120362 A1) discloses monitoring a student’s mobile device location to determine class attendance by determining if the location of the mobile device is within the class location (see paragraph 42).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Umut Onat whose telephone number is (571)270-1735. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00-7:30.
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, Kevin L Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
/UMUT ONAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194