DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
All objections/rejections not mentioned in this Office Action have been withdrawn by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed on 29 September 2025 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claim(s), the amendments of claim(s) 1 and 19-20 have been acknowledged and entered.
After entry of the amendment, claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-22 remain pending.
In view of the amendment to claim(s) 1, and 19-20, the objection of claims 1 and 19-20 is withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim(s) 1, and 19-20, the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as is maintained as modified in response to the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, see pages 9-12 of the Response to Non-Final Office Action dated 15 July 2025, which was received on 29 September 2025 (hereinafter Response and Office Action, respectively), have been fully considered.
With respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, and mutatis mutandis claim(s) 19 and 20, under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being obvious over Ittelson (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0032041, hereinafter Ittelson) in view of Hillis (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2004/0019479, hereinafter Hillis), applicant asserts that Ittelson fails to teach and suggest at least “generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group, wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data and is audible; generating second simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the second group, wherein the generated second simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data, is audible, and is different from the generated first simulated choral audio chatter; providing the generated first simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the second group; and providing the generated second simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the first group,” as recited in independent claim 1. However, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The Response begins with a verbatim restatement of the entirety of claim 1. (Response, pg. 10). In the next two paragraphs, applicant provides an interpretation of the inventions described in Ittelson and Harris, including a statement from the Office Action indicating lack of express recitation provided regarding Ittelson. (Response, pg., 11, citing Office Action, pgs. 5-6). Applicant then ends the discussion with a general recitation that the cited references fail to teach or suggest “generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group, wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data and is audible; generating second simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the second group, wherein the generated second simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data, is audible, and is different from the generated first simulated choral audio chatter; providing the generated first simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the second group; and providing the generated second simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the first group.” (Response, pgs. 11-12). Regarding the quoted block text from claim 1, it is noted that this language corresponds to almost the entirety of the claim. It is unclear how the incorporated interpretations of Ittelson and Harris relate to proposed amendments and/or any asserted deficiencies in the rejection. Further, the amendment, though substantial regarding the effect on the breadth of the claim, is minimal regarding the amount of language amended. Respectfully, applicant fails to provide any arguments or explanations which correspond to any of the claim mapping provided in the Office Action or explanations as to how the amendment overcomes the rejection. The remaining arguments amount to little more than an assertion that the claims are patentable.
Regarding the amendments, Hillis discloses generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group, (For students in a first classroom of at least two open space classrooms, the system “mask[s] a speech stream” between the “open space classrooms”, by “identify[ing] the phonemes composing the speech stream” and generating “an obfuscated speech signal... from a sequence of phonemes similar to the identified phonemes” for each of the classrooms; Hillis, ¶ [0023], [0049]) … [and] generating second simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the second group, (For the students participating in the second classroom, much as the first classroom, the system “mask[s] a speech stream” between the “open space classrooms”, by “identify[ing] the phonemes composing the speech stream” and generating “an obfuscated speech signal... from a sequence of phonemes similar to the identified phonemes” for each of the classrooms.; Hillis, ¶ [0023], [0049]). One skilled in the art would understand that the “identified phonemes” from a “speech stream” is the speech of the audio signal, and that the “obfuscated speech signal” which is generated “from a sequence of phonemes similar to the identified phonemes” is the simulated choral audio chatter. Further, the described simulated choral audio chatter of Hillis (i.e., the “obfuscated speech signal”) is based on speech of the audio data from all members of the classroom.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments in light of the amended claims are not persuasive for the reasons described above. As such, the rejections of claims 1, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 are maintained with regards to the cited embodiments and modified as appropriate to address the amended language.
Applicant further argues that the rejection(s) of dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 15-18, and 21-22 should be withdrawn for at least the same reasons as independent claims 1, 19, and 20. Regarding claims 16 and 17, in light of the amended claim language and with relation to the objections below, the rejections of claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. §103 are withdrawn. Regarding claims 2-5, 7-13, 15, and 18, and 21-22, applicant’s arguments in light of the amended claims are not persuasive. As such, the rejections of claims 2-5, 7-13, 15, and 18, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. §103 are maintained.
However, upon further consideration, new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 are made in light of combinations of Ittelson, Hillis, Peters (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0176429, hereinafter Peters), Jackson (WO2023049483A1, hereinafter Jackson), Morris (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0360315, hereinafter Morris), Gupta (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0007063, hereinafter Gupta), and Harris (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2009/0006082, hereinafter Harris) and newly cited reference Benedetto (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0383849, hereinafter Benedetto).
The Applicant has not provided any further statement and therefore, the Examiner directs the Applicant to the below rationale.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 16 and 17, each of these claims further modify a limitation which was amended in the independent claim. However, the related recitations of the original limitation were not amended to incorporate the same amended language.
This is understood as a clerical oversight during the amendment process. As such, the following proposed amendment, if acceptable to the applicant and included in the next response, would overcome the objection:
In claim 16, amend “first simulated choral audio chatter based on the audio data” at lines 4-5 to “first simulated choral audio chatter based on the speech of the audio data”.
In claim 17, amend “first simulated choral audio chatter based on the audio data” at lines 1-2 to “first simulated choral audio chatter based on the speech of the audio data”.
For purposes of compact prosecution, the phrase “based on the audio data” is being read as “based on the speech of the audio data”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12-13, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittelson in view of Hillis
Regarding claim 1, Ittelson discloses A computer-implemented method for simulated choral audio chatter in communication systems (The systems and methods described with reference to “capturing and presenting audience response at scale”; Ittelson, ¶ [0075]), the method comprising: receiving audio data from each of a plurality of users (“the video conference provider 310 receives a plurality of responses from the participants in the video conference”; Ittelson, ¶ [0076]) participating in a first group of a plurality of groups (the plurality of responses are each provided by one of a plurality of participants and where the participants are part of at least one group, such as the first group (e.g., “the video conference provider assigns a subgroup to each of the plurality of responses” where subgroup indicates a plurality of groupings); Ittelson, ¶ [0076], [0078]) for an event using a communication system (“in the video conference” hosted by “a video conference provider”; Ittelson, ¶ [0076], [0078]); receiving audio data from each of a plurality of users (As indicated with regards to the first group, “the video conference provider 310 receives a plurality of responses from the participants in the video conference.”; Ittelson, ¶ [0076]) participating in a second group of the plurality of groups for the event, (Corresponding to the first group, the plurality of responses are each provided by one of a plurality of participants and where the participants are part of the second group.; Ittelson, ¶ [0076], [0078]). However, Ittelson fails to expressly recite wherein each of the plurality of users participating in the first group are different from each of the plurality of users participating in the second group; generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group, wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data and is audible; generating second simulated choral audio chatter based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the second group, wherein the generated second simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data, is audible, and is different from the generated first simulated choral audio chatter; providing the generated first simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the second group; and providing the generated second simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the first group.
Hillis teaches systems and methods for generating an unintelligible speech stream. (Hillis, ¶ [0013]). Regarding claim 1, Hillis teaches wherein each of the plurality of users participating in the first group are different from each of the plurality of users participating in the second group (Describes “masking a speech stream” between “open space classrooms”, where the classrooms are groups of people in a “partitioned area” which are understood as occurring at the same time. Thus, the students (users) participating in the first classroom (group) are different from each of the plurality of students (users) participating in the second classroom (group).; Hillis, ¶ [0021], [0049]); generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group, (For students in the first classroom, the system “mask[s] a speech stream” between the “open space classrooms”, by “identify[ing] the phonemes composing the speech stream” and generating “an obfuscated speech signal... from a sequence of phonemes similar to the identified phonemes” for each of the classrooms,; Hillis, ¶ [0023], [0049]) wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data and is audible (the generated “obfuscated speech signal” for the first classroom, as generated from the speech of the second classroom is “speech-like, yet unintelligible” such that “students” in the “partitioned area” for the first classroom are “less distracted by” the “unintelligible voice-like speech stream emanating from [the second classroom]”; Hillis, ¶ [0021], [0023], [0049]); generating second simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the second group, (For the students participating in the second classroom, much as the first classroom, the system “mask[s] a speech stream” between the “open space classrooms”, by “identify[ing] the phonemes composing the speech stream” and generating “an obfuscated speech signal... from a sequence of phonemes similar to the identified phonemes” for each of the classrooms.; Hillis, ¶ [0023], [0049]) wherein the generated second simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data, is audible (Respectively, the generated “obfuscated speech signal” for the second classroom, as generated from the speech of the first classroom is “speech-like, yet unintelligible” such that “students” in the “partitioned area” for the second classroom are “less distracted by” the “unintelligible voice-like speech stream emanating from [the first classroom]”; Hillis, ¶ [0021], [0023], [0049]), and is different from the generated first simulated choral audio chatter (The “unintelligible voice-like speech stream” as generated based on “signal representing the stream of speech obtained by the microphone” from the first classroom, is different from the “unintelligible voice-like speech stream” as generated based on “signal representing the stream of speech obtained by the microphone” from the second classroom; Hillis, ¶ [0023], [0049]); providing the generated first simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the second group (“The obfuscated speech stream” from the first classroom “is reproduced and presented, using one or more speakers 50” to the second classroom as an “unintelligible voice-like speech stream emanating from [the first classroom]”; Hillis, ¶ [0023]-[0024], [0049]); and providing the generated second simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the first group (Conversely, “[t]he obfuscated speech stream” from the second classroom “is reproduced and presented, using one or more speakers 50” to the first classroom as an “unintelligible voice-like speech stream emanating from [the second classroom]”; Hillis, ¶ [0023]-[0024], [0049]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson to incorporate the teachings of Hillis to include wherein each of the plurality of users participating in the first group are different from each of the plurality of users participating in the second group; generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group, wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data and is audible; generating second simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the second group, wherein the generated second simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data, is audible, and is different from the generated first simulated choral audio chatter; providing the generated first simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the second group; and providing the generated second simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the first group. Hillis discloses systems and methods for “producing an obfuscated speech signal which may be used to mask a stream of speech,” that can be employed “anywhere a private conversation may be overheard” to generate “realistic yet unintelligible voice-like background noise,” which may be applied in an event setting to both mask the private conversations and give “the impression of a crowd,” as recognized by Hillis. (Hillis, ¶ [0013], [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ittelson and Hillis disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Ittelson further discloses wherein the plurality of groups are a plurality of breakout sessions and the event is a conference having a main session (“Meetings...[can be] provided in virtual ‘rooms’ to which participants are connected” where “a meeting may also have ‘breakout’ rooms… [and]such breakout rooms may also be rooms that are associated with a ‘main’ videoconference room” and “the captured signals are combined into subgroupings and used to create different representations”; Ittelson, ¶ [0027], [0020]).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ittelson and Hillis disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Ittelson further discloses wherein the at least one user is one or more of an administrator of the event, a moderator of the event, an overseeing user of the event (The receiving user may be a host, where the host is assigned “administrative privileges to allow them to manage their meetings, such as by enabling or disabling screen sharing, muting or removing users from the meeting, creating sub-meetings or “break-out” rooms, recording meetings, etc.” As such, the host as described in Ittelson includes the role of an administrator, a moderator {“muting or removing users from the meeting” is a moderator activity}, and a overseeing user {the host is part of “their meeting,” thus is also a user}.; Ittelson, ¶ [0058], [0021]), and a presenter at the event (“example systems as described herein provide a more natural, consolidated response, which provides a presenter with an improved sense of the mood of the crowd.”; Ittelson, ¶ [0022]).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ittelson and Hillis disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Ittelson further discloses further comprising: determining an activity level of the first group (“the audience responses are scored and then used to gauge the amount of ‘energy’ of an audience attending a particular host’s event”; Ittelson, ¶ [0021], [0080]) based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group (the audience responses are derived from the audio data received from each of the plurality of users, which includes the users in each subgroup {the first group}; Ittelson, ¶ [0021], [0080]); adjusting the generated first simulated choral audio data for the first group based on the determined activity level of the first group (“the video conference provider generates a consolidated response that is based at least in part on the response characteristics, or information generated from the characteristics, such as the subgroup, the priority, and/or the score associated with particular responses.”; Ittelson, ¶ [0081]).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Ittelson and Hillis disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Ittelson further discloses wherein the activity level is further based on one or more of video data, text data, gesture data, and transcription of the audio data (“For example, a loud clap may be associated with a high score since it indicates a stronger approval of the content {gesture data}” and “the user might select from three ratings—low, middle, high—indicating the user’s approval of particular content of the video conference, which the video conference provider 310 can then use to generate the score assigned to the response {text data}.”; Ittelson, ¶ [0080]).
Regarding claim 19, Ittelson discloses A system for simulated choral audio chatter in communication systems (The systems and methods described with reference to “capturing and presenting audience response at scale”; Ittelson, ¶ [0075]), the system including: a data storage device that stores instructions for simulated choral audio chatter in communication systems; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform a method (The system includes “a processor or processors” where “Such processors... in communication with... one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, that may store processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, can cause the processor to perform methods according to this disclosure”; Ittelson, ¶ [0087]-[0088]) including: receiving audio data from each of a plurality of users (“the video conference provider 310 receives a plurality of responses from the participants in the video conference”; Ittelson, ¶ [0076]) participating in a first group of a plurality of groups (the plurality of responses are each provided by one of a plurality of participants and where the participants are part of at least one group, such as the first group (e.g., “the video conference provider assigns a subgroup to each of the plurality of responses” where subgroup indicates a plurality of groupings); Ittelson, ¶ [0076], [0078]) for an event using a communication system (“in the video conference” hosted by “a video conference provider”; Ittelson, ¶ [0076], [0078]); receiving audio data from each of a plurality of users (As indicated with regards to the first group, “the video conference provider 310 receives a plurality of responses from the participants in the video conference.”; Ittelson, ¶ [0076]) participating in a second group of the plurality of groups for the event, (Corresponding to the first group, the plurality of responses are each provided by one of a plurality of participants and where the participants are part of the second group.; Ittelson, ¶ [0076], [0078]). However, Ittelson fails to expressly recite wherein each of the plurality of users participating in the first group are different from each of the plurality of users participating in the second group; generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group, wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data and is audible; generating second simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the second group, wherein the generated second simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data, is audible, and is different from the generated first simulated choral audio chatter; providing the generated first simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the second group; and providing the generated second simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the first group.
The relevance of Hillis is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 19, Hillis teaches wherein each of the plurality of users participating in the first group are different from each of the plurality of users participating in the second group (Describes “masking a speech stream” between “open space classrooms”, where the classrooms are groups of people in a “partitioned area” which are understood as occurring at the same time. Thus, the students (users) participating in the first classroom (group) are different from each of the plurality of students (users) participating in the second classroom (group).; Hillis, ¶ [0021], [0049]); generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group, (For students in the first classroom, the system “mask[s] a speech stream” between the “open space classrooms”, by “identify[ing] the phonemes composing the speech stream” and generating “an obfuscated speech signal... from a sequence of phonemes similar to the identified phonemes” for each of the classrooms,; Hillis, ¶ [0023], [0049]) wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data and is audible (the generated “obfuscated speech signal” for the first classroom, as generated from the speech of the second classroom is “speech-like, yet unintelligible” such that “students” in the “partitioned area” for the first classroom are “less distracted by” the “unintelligible voice-like speech stream emanating from [the second classroom]”; Hillis, ¶ [0021], [0023], [0049]); generating second simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the second group, (For the students participating in the second classroom, much as the first classroom, the system “mask[s] a speech stream” between the “open space classrooms”, by “identify[ing] the phonemes composing the speech stream” and generating “an obfuscated speech signal... from a sequence of phonemes similar to the identified phonemes” for each of the classrooms.; Hillis, ¶ [0023], [0049]) wherein the generated second simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data, is audible (Respectively, the generated “obfuscated speech signal” for the second classroom, as generated from the speech of the first classroom is “speech-like, yet unintelligible” such that “students” in the “partitioned area” for the second classroom are “less distracted by” the “unintelligible voice-like speech stream emanating from [the first classroom]”; Hillis, ¶ [0021], [0023], [0049]), and is different from the generated first simulated choral audio chatter (The “unintelligible voice-like speech stream” as generated based on “signal representing the stream of speech obtained by the microphone” from the first classroom, is different from the “unintelligible voice-like speech stream” as generated based on “signal representing the stream of speech obtained by the microphone” from the second classroom; Hillis, ¶ [0023], [0049]); providing the generated first simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the second group (“The obfuscated speech stream” from the first classroom “is reproduced and presented, using one or more speakers 50” to the second classroom as an “unintelligible voice-like speech stream emanating from [the first classroom]”; Hillis, ¶ [0023]-[0024], [0049]); and providing the generated second simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the first group (Conversely, “[t]he obfuscated speech stream” from the second classroom “is reproduced and presented, using one or more speakers 50” to the first classroom as an “unintelligible voice-like speech stream emanating from [the second classroom]”; Hillis, ¶ [0023]-[0024], [0049]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson to incorporate the teachings of Hillis to include wherein each of the plurality of users participating in the first group are different from each of the plurality of users participating in the second group; generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group, wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data and is audible; generating second simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the second group, wherein the generated second simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data, is audible, and is different from the generated first simulated choral audio chatter; providing the generated first simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the second group; and providing the generated second simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the first group. Hillis discloses systems and methods for “producing an obfuscated speech signal which may be used to mask a stream of speech,” that can be employed “anywhere a private conversation may be overheard” to generate “realistic yet unintelligible voice-like background noise,” which may be applied in an event setting to both mask the private conversations and give “the impression of a crowd,” as recognized by Hillis. (Hillis, ¶ [0013], [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 20, Ittelson discloses A computer-readable storage device storing instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method for simulated choral audio chatter in communication systems (“one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, that may store processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, can cause the processor to perform methods according to this disclosure” as described with reference to “capturing and presenting audience response at scale”; Ittelson, ¶ [0088], [0075]), the method including: receiving audio data from each of a plurality of users (“the video conference provider 310 receives a plurality of responses from the participants in the video conference”; Ittelson, ¶ [0076]) participating in a first group of a plurality of groups (the plurality of responses are each provided by one of a plurality of participants and where the participants are part of at least one group, such as the first group (e.g., “the video conference provider assigns a subgroup to each of the plurality of responses” where subgroup indicates a plurality of groupings); Ittelson, ¶ [0076], [0078]) for an event using a communication system (“in the video conference” hosted by “a video conference provider”; Ittelson, ¶ [0076], [0078]); receiving audio data from each of a plurality of users (As indicated with regards to the first group, “the video conference provider 310 receives a plurality of responses from the participants in the video conference.”; Ittelson, ¶ [0076]) participating in a second group of the plurality of groups for the event, (Corresponding to the first group, the plurality of responses are each provided by one of a plurality of participants and where the participants are part of the second group.; Ittelson, ¶ [0076], [0078]). However, Ittelson fails to expressly recite wherein each of the plurality of users participating in the first group are different from each of the plurality of users participating in the second group; generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group, wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data and is audible; generating second simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the second group, wherein the generated second simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data, is audible, and is different from the generated first simulated choral audio chatter; providing the generated first simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the second group; and providing the generated second simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the first group.
The relevance of Hillis is described above with relation to claim 1. Regarding claim 20, Hillis teaches wherein each of the plurality of users participating in the first group are different from each of the plurality of users participating in the second group (Describes “masking a speech stream” between “open space classrooms”, where the classrooms are groups of people in a “partitioned area” which are understood as occurring at the same time. Thus, the students (users) participating in the first classroom (group) are different from each of the plurality of students (users) participating in the second classroom (group).; Hillis, ¶ [0021], [0049]); generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group, (For students in the first classroom, the system “mask[s] a speech stream” between the “open space classrooms”, by “identify[ing] the phonemes composing the speech stream” and generating “an obfuscated speech signal... from a sequence of phonemes similar to the identified phonemes” for each of the classrooms,; Hillis, ¶ [0023], [0049]) wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data and is audible (the generated “obfuscated speech signal” for the first classroom, as generated from the speech of the second classroom is “speech-like, yet unintelligible” such that “students” in the “partitioned area” for the first classroom are “less distracted by” the “unintelligible voice-like speech stream emanating from [the second classroom]”; Hillis, ¶ [0021], [0023], [0049]); generating second simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the second group, (For the students participating in the second classroom, much as the first classroom, the system “mask[s] a speech stream” between the “open space classrooms”, by “identify[ing] the phonemes composing the speech stream” and generating “an obfuscated speech signal... from a sequence of phonemes similar to the identified phonemes” for each of the classrooms.; Hillis, ¶ [0023], [0049]) wherein the generated second simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data, is audible (Respectively, the generated “obfuscated speech signal” for the second classroom, as generated from the speech of the first classroom is “speech-like, yet unintelligible” such that “students” in the “partitioned area” for the second classroom are “less distracted by” the “unintelligible voice-like speech stream emanating from [the first classroom]”; Hillis, ¶ [0021], [0023], [0049]), and is different from the generated first simulated choral audio chatter (The “unintelligible voice-like speech stream” as generated based on “signal representing the stream of speech obtained by the microphone” from the first classroom, is different from the “unintelligible voice-like speech stream” as generated based on “signal representing the stream of speech obtained by the microphone” from the second classroom; Hillis, ¶ [0023], [0049]); providing the generated first simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the second group (“The obfuscated speech stream” from the first classroom “is reproduced and presented, using one or more speakers 50” to the second classroom as an “unintelligible voice-like speech stream emanating from [the first classroom]”; Hillis, ¶ [0023]-[0024], [0049]); and providing the generated second simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the first group (Conversely, “[t]he obfuscated speech stream” from the second classroom “is reproduced and presented, using one or more speakers 50” to the first classroom as an “unintelligible voice-like speech stream emanating from [the second classroom]”; Hillis, ¶ [0023]-[0024], [0049]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson to incorporate the teachings of Hillis to include wherein each of the plurality of users participating in the first group are different from each of the plurality of users participating in the second group; generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group, wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data and is audible; generating second simulated choral audio chatter based on speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the second group, wherein the generated second simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data, is audible, and is different from the generated first simulated choral audio chatter; providing the generated first simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the second group; and providing the generated second simulated choral audio data to the plurality of users in the first group. Hillis discloses systems and methods for “producing an obfuscated speech signal which may be used to mask a stream of speech,” that can be employed “anywhere a private conversation may be overheard” to generate “realistic yet unintelligible voice-like background noise,” which may be applied in an event setting to both mask the private conversations and give “the impression of a crowd,” as recognized by Hillis. (Hillis, ¶ [0013], [0048]-[0049]).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittelson and Hillis as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Peters.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Ittelson and Hillis disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Ittelson further discloses further comprising: determining an amount of speech in each group (The “audience responses” which can be voice responses “are scored and then used to gauge the amount of ‘energy’ of an audience attending a particular host’s event and may be used with other such scores to determine a typical score typically associated with a particular host’s events,” thereby determining a current score for voice responses in each group compared to a previous score for voice responses in each group {amount of speech in each group}; Ittelson, ¶ [0021], [0069]) based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the respective group of the plurality of groups (The audience responses may be collected based on virtual identifiers for the attendees, thus from each of the plurality of users in the respective group.; Ittelson, ¶ [0021], [0081]); and generating and sending a signal to one or more of the administrator of the event, the moderator of the event, and the overseeing user of the event (“the video conference provider generates a consolidated response that is based at least in part on... the score associated with particular responses” to “provide ongoing consolidated feedback to the host,” where the host is the administrator, moderator, and overseeing user of the event; Ittelson, ¶ [0081], [0083], [0058], [0021]). However, Ittelson fails to expressly recite generating and sending a signal to one or more of the administrator of the event, the moderator of the event, and the overseeing user of the event when the determined amount of speech is below a predetermined threshold.
Peters teaches systems and methods for managing videoconferences. (Peters, ¶ [0002]). Regarding claim 4, Peters teaches generating and sending a signal to one or more of the administrator of the event, the moderator of the event, and the overseeing user of the event (“moderator module calculates a measurement value based on at least one characteristic evaluated by facial and audio recognition of at least one of the endpoint conference participants. The measurement value(s) can be used to represent—in real time—the quality and extent the participants have participated. Therefore, providing active feedback of the level and quality of the one or more conference participants, based on one or more monitored characteristics. Optionally, if certain thresholds are achieved or maintained, the system may trigger certain actions in order to facilitate engagement amongst the conference participants.”; Peters, ¶ [0080]) when the determined amount of speech is below a predetermined threshold (“the system can cause the presenter to be notified of the aggregate representation (e.g., when it reaches a predetermined threshold or condition) using an audio notification, a haptic notification, or other output” which includes notification based on being below the predetermined threshold {e.g., the floating threshold created by “overall engagement falling by 25%”}; Peters, ¶ [0294]-[0295]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson, as modified by the speech privacy and audio environment modification systems of Hillis, to incorporate the teachings of Peters to include generating and sending a signal to one or more of the administrator of the event, the moderator of the event, and the overseeing user of the event when the determined amount of speech is below a predetermined threshold. The moderator module in Peters combines “raw scores into an overall collaborative or composite score” and based on the score “determine[s] what action should take place to improve conference participant scores,” which improves engagement while “balancing between needs of different participants for the most collaborative experience,” as recognized by Peters. (Peters, ¶ [0083]).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittelson and Hillis as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jackson.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Ittelson and Hillis disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Ittelson further discloses further comprising: receiving audio data from each of a plurality of users waiting in... [a virtual] room for the event (“the video conference provider 310 receives a plurality of responses from the participants in the video conference” where “Meetings... are provided in virtual ‘rooms’ to which participants are connected.”; Ittelson, ¶ [0076], [0027]); generating admittance simulated choral audio chatter (“the video conference provider 310 samples each of the plurality of responses to identify response characteristics, i.e., characteristics of the received response during the sampling period,” and “generates a consolidated response that is based at least in part on the response characteristics”; Ittelson, ¶ [0077], [0080]-[0081]) based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the admittance room (The consolidated response “is based at least in part on the response characteristics, or information generated from the characteristics, such as the subgroup, the priority, and/or the score associated with particular responses”; Ittelson, ¶ [0081]); and providing the generated admittance simulated choral audio data to the administrator of the event, the moderator of the event, and the overseeing user of the event (The consolidated response may be iteratively produced “continuously during a video conference to provide ongoing consolidated feedback to the host,” where the host is the administrator, moderator, and overseeing user of the event; Ittelson, ¶ [0083], [0058], [0021]). However, Ittelson fails to expressly recite wherein the virtual room is an admittance room.
Jackson teaches “systems and methods for simulating a conference or similar event in a virtual convention center environment.” (Jackson, ¶ [0002]). Regarding claim 5, Jackson teaches wherein the virtual room is an admittance room (“at least one space may be a virtual lobby. The virtual lobby may be provided as an entry point to the virtual conference event (i.e., the room application instance where attendees will enter the virtual conference event).”; Jackson, ¶ [0061]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson, as modified by the speech privacy and audio environment modification systems of Hillis, to incorporate the teachings of Jackson to include wherein the virtual room is an admittance room. The virtual lobby described in Jackson provides a virtual space for orientation and information within the virtual conference environment, including a “concierge” which “can answer participant questions (in real-time) and provide participants with directions,” which allows for registration of the participant, as well as orientation, which improves the participants ability to “identify… special interests” as well as assisting with “accessing room application instances (e.g., via additional registration instructions),… [and] finding specific information, locations, or areas of interest within the virtual conference event,” as recognized by Jackson. (Jackson, ¶ [0069]-[0070]).
Claim 7-10, 15, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittelson and Hillis as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Morris.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ittelson and Hillis disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Ittelson further discloses wherein each group of the plurality of groups includes a spatial location associated with the group (“the video conference provider assigns a subgroup to each of the plurality of responses” based in part on “the relative virtual position of a participant in the video conference... such as left, center, or right to a particular response” and such “subgroups could then be used to layer the various responses later in the process {a spatial location associated with the subgroup}.”; Ittelson, ¶ [0078]), wherein the method further comprises: determining a distance between each group from another group of the plurality of groups based on the spatial location of each group (Subgrouping based on “left, center, or right to a particular response” is the determination of a relative distance with respect to the subgroup and the response, where left, center, or right is the spatial location of each subgroup.; Ittelson, ¶ [0078]); and providing generated simulated choral audio data to a particular group of the plurality of the groups…[based on the determined distance] (“Such subgroups could then be used to layer the various responses later in the process” which is provided to the user and/or multiple users.; Ittelson, ¶ [0078], [0082], [0084]). However, Ittelson fails to expressly recite when the determined distance for the particular group is less than a first predetermined threshold.
Morris teaches “systems and methods for audio and video teleconferencing within virtual environments.” (Morris, ¶ [0002]). Regarding claim 7, Morris teaches providing generated simulated choral audio data to a particular group of the plurality of the groups (“spatial audio may be used to place an audio stream corresponding to an avatar in an appropriate position (e.g. panning within a stereo field or stereo attenuation, dynamically adjusting the level of an audio signal within stereo channels to control its apparent direction and/or distance) corresponding to the relative positions or orientations of the avatar and the viewer. Attenuation may also be used to reduce audio corresponding to avatars that are further away.”; Morris, ¶ [0048]-[0049]) when the determined distance for the particular group is less than a first predetermined threshold (“depending on relative direction and distance from the avatar 102, a viewer’s computing device may attenuate the audio stream (e.g. 0 dB at a first “conversational” distance, -10 dB at a middle distance, -20 dB at a further distance, etc.)” and “audio streams corresponding to avatars that are very far away may be completely attenuated or eliminated altogether” and “not be provided to the viewer’s computing device”; Morris, ¶ [0048]-[0049]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson, as modified by the speech privacy and audio environment modification systems of Hillis, to incorporate the teachings of Morris to include wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data. The systems and methods of Morris provide audio based on virtual distance between sources which “provides a distinct advantage over implementations of a grid-based teleconferencing system, both by reducing background noise and increasing intelligibility of nearby conversations, and increasing scalability,” under conversational circumstances, while providing “a more private conversation or reduc[ing] noise from other users,” as recognized by Morris. (Morris, ¶ [0049], [0060]).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Ittelson and Hillis disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ittelson fails to expressly recite further comprising: adjusting the generated simulated choral audio data for each group based on the determined distance between each group from another group, wherein as the determined distance increases, a volume of the generated simulated choral audio data decreases.
The relevance of Morris is described above with relation to claim 7. Regarding claim 8, Morris teaches further comprising: adjusting the generated simulated choral audio data for each group based on the determined distance between each group from another group, (“depending on relative direction and distance from the avatar 102, a viewer’s computing device may attenuate the audio stream” for each participant “(e.g. 0 dB at a first “conversational” distance, -10 dB at a middle distance, -20 dB at a further distance, etc.)”; Morris, ¶ [0048]) wherein as the determined distance increases, a volume of the generated simulated choral audio data decreases (The indicated reduction in dB is based on an increase in the determined distance between avatars; Morris, ¶ [0048]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson, as modified by the speech privacy and audio environment modification systems of Hillis, to incorporate the teachings of Morris to include wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data. The systems and methods of Morris provide audio based on virtual distance between sources which “provides a distinct advantage over implementations of a grid-based teleconferencing system, both by reducing background noise and increasing intelligibility of nearby conversations, and increasing scalability,” under conversational circumstances, while providing “a more private conversation or reduc[ing] noise from other users,” as recognized by Morris. (Morris, ¶ [0049], [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Ittelson and Hillis disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ittelson fails to expressly recite further comprising: providing audio data of the particular group when the determined distance is less than a second predetermined threshold, the second predetermined distance less than the first predetermined distance; and ending providing of the generated simulated choral audio data to the particular group when the determined distance is less than the second predetermined threshold.
The relevance of Morris is described above with relation to claim 7. Regarding claim 9, Morris teaches further comprising: providing audio data of the particular group (“spatial audio may be used to place an audio stream corresponding to an avatar in an appropriate position (e.g., panning within a stereo field or stereo attenuation, dynamically adjusting the level of an audio signal within stereo channels to control its apparent direction and/or distance) corresponding to the relative positions or orientations of the avatar and the viewer. Attenuation may also be used to reduce audio corresponding to avatars that are further away.”; Morris, ¶ [0048]-[0049]) when the determined distance is less than a second predetermined threshold (“depending on relative direction and distance from the avatar 102, a viewer’s computing device may attenuate the audio stream (e.g. 0 dB at a first “conversational” distance, -10 dB at a middle distance, -20 dB at a further distance, etc.)” and “audio streams corresponding to avatars that are very far away may be completely attenuated or eliminated altogether” and “not be provided to the viewer’s computing device”; Morris, ¶ [0048]-[0049]), the second predetermined distance less than the first predetermined distance (the second predetermined distance (threshold) may be more proximate to the particular group, considered as “conversational” distance, than the first predetermined distance (threshold), considered as “very far away,”; Morris, ¶ [0048]-[0049]); and ending providing of the generated simulated choral audio data to the particular group (“While in the privacy mode or bubble, audio streams corresponding to the avatars 102A-102B may not be streamed to other users’ computing devices, and vice versa,” where, in the context of Ittelson, the privacy mode of Morris is understood to stop background noise {generated simulated choral audio data}; Morris, ¶ [0060]) when the determined distance is less than the second predetermined threshold (“an attenuation threshold distance {the second predetermined threshold} may be set at the boundary of the bubble {when the determined distance is less than…} with audio attenuated completely beyond that distance”; Morris, ¶ [0060]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson, as modified by the speech privacy and audio environment modification systems of Hillis, to incorporate the teachings of Morris to include wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data. The systems and methods of Morris provide audio based on virtual distance between sources which “provides a distinct advantage over implementations of a grid-based teleconferencing system, both by reducing background noise and increasing intelligibility of nearby conversations, and increasing scalability,” under conversational circumstances, while providing “a more private conversation or reduc[ing] noise from other users,” as recognized by Morris. (Morris, ¶ [0049], [0060]).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Ittelson and Hillis disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ittelson fails to expressly recite further comprising: alerting one or more of an administrator of the event, a moderator of the event, an overseeing user of the event, and users of the particular group when audio data of the particular group is provided to another group of the plurality of groups.
The relevance of Morris is described above with relation to claim 7. Regarding claim 10, Morris teaches further comprising: alerting one or more of an administrator of the event, a moderator of the event, an overseeing user of the event, and users of the particular group (“Advantageously, these implementations provide a visual cue for other users that the users within the privacy mode are present and communicating but are occupied.”; Morris, ¶ [0060]) when audio data of the particular group is provided to another group of the plurality of groups (“Upon exiting the privacy mode, in some implementation, the bubble or other visual effect may dissipate or burst and the avatars may float back to the floor of the environment. “; Morris, ¶ [0060]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson, as modified by the speech privacy and audio environment modification systems of Hillis, to incorporate the teachings of Morris to include wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter removes recognizable speech of the audio data. The systems and methods of Morris provide audio based on virtual distance between sources which “provides a distinct advantage over implementations of a grid-based teleconferencing system, both by reducing background noise and increasing intelligibility of nearby conversations, and increasing scalability,” under conversational circumstances, while providing “a more private conversation or reduc[ing] noise from other users,” as recognized by Morris. (Morris, ¶ [0049], [0060]).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ittelson and Hillis disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ittelson fails to expressly recite wherein in the first simulated choral audio chatter is muffled and preserves privacy of the speech of the audio data.
The relevance of Morris is described above with relation to claim 7. Regarding claim 15, Morris teaches wherein in the generated first simulated choral audio chatter is muffled and preserves privacy of the speech of the audio data (“a privacy mode may be utilized to both completely attenuate or eliminate conversations from others as well as providing privacy for the subgroup of users,” where, in the context of Ittelson, the privacy mode is understood to stop background noise {first simulated choral audio chatter}, and further, as a privacy bubble for keeping conversations private, the privacy bubble is understood to preserve the privacy of the speech of the audio data.; Morris, ¶ [0060]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson, as modified by the speech privacy and audio environment modification systems of Hillis, to incorporate the teachings of Morris to include wherein in the first simulated choral audio chatter is muffled and preserves privacy of the speech of the audio data. The systems and methods of Morris provide audio based on virtual distance between sources which “provides a distinct advantage over implementations of a grid-based teleconferencing system, both by reducing background noise and increasing intelligibility of nearby conversations, and increasing scalability,” under conversational circumstances, while providing “a more private conversation or reduc[ing] noise from other users,” as recognized by Morris. (Morris, ¶ [0049], [0060]).
Regarding claim 21, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. Claim 21 is substantially the same as claim 15 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
Regarding claim 22, the rejection of claim 20 is incorporated. Claim 22 is substantially the same as claim 15 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittelson, Hillis, and Morris as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Gupta.
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Ittelson, Hillis, and Morris disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ittelson, Hillis, and Morris fail to expressly recite further comprising: analyzing the audio data of each group of the plurality of groups for at least one keyword or phrase; determining whether the at least one keyword or phrase has occurred in the audio data of each group; and adjusting the spatial location of each group of the plurality of groups when the at least one keyword or phrase is determined to have occurred in the audio data of the group.
Gupta teaches systems and methods for creating and managing a breakout conference for a primary conference. (Gupta, ¶ [0001]). Regarding claim 11, Gupta teaches further comprising: analyzing the audio data of each group of the plurality of groups for at least one keyword or phrase (“the NLP algorithm uses various speech processing techniques to convert the voice input into text and, determine relevance of each word, and select keywords that are indicative of the context of the voice input.”; Gupta, ¶ [0101]); determining whether the at least one keyword or phrase has occurred in the audio data of each group (“The AI algorithm may then contextually make sense of the statement, such as by using off the shelf speech analysis software, and relate each keyword or voice input to a topic of the meeting agenda.”; Gupta, ¶ [0102]); and adjusting the spatial location of each group of the plurality of groups when the at least one keyword or phrase is determined to have occurred in the audio data of the group (“the AI algorithm may detect that voice input ‘That will not work’ is a negation and is contextually related to a prior voice input {when the at least one keyword has occurred in the audio data of the group},” and “if a determination is made at block 730, that the number of negations or counter statements meet the threshold number, then at block 740 the control circuitry 204 automatically creates a virtual breakout conference {adjust the spatial location of each group of the plurality of groups} to resolve the disagreement.”; Gupta, ¶ [0103]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson, as modified by the speech privacy and audio environment modification systems of Hillis, as modified by the audio teleconferencing systems of Morris, to incorporate the teachings of Gupta to include further comprising: analyzing the audio data of each group of the plurality of groups for at least one keyword or phrase; determining whether the at least one keyword or phrase has occurred in the audio data of each group; and adjusting the spatial location of each group of the plurality of groups when the at least one keyword or phrase is determined to have occurred in the audio data of the group. As explained in Gupta, the system can determine based on a “number of negations or counter statements… that a disagreement exists and create the separate breakout conference” for the involved participants, which can “increase productivity during conference calls, especially when a disagreement occurs between its participants,” as recognized by Gupta. (Gupta, ¶ [0103], [0005]).
Claims 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittelson and Hillis as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Benedetto.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ittelson and Hillis disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ittelson fails to expressly recite further comprising: receiving one or more of video data, text data, gesture data, and transcription of the audio data from each of the plurality of users participating in the first group; wherein the generating of the first simulated choral audio chatter based on the speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group includes: generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group and the one or more of the video data, the text data, the gesture data, and the transcription of the audio data.
Benedetto teaches systems and methods for “generating crowd noise for viewers viewing a media event.” (Benedetto, ¶ [0001]). Regarding claim 16, Benedetto teaches further comprising: receiving one or more of video data, text data, gesture data, and transcription of the audio data from each of the plurality of users participating in the first group (“the cloud service 116 is configured to capture and receive audio data from the viewers 102 of the media event,” which can correspond to “viewers 102a-102b” of “the plurality of viewers 102 a-102 n” including “the verbal expressions and reactions (e.g., utterances)” of the viewers as well as “a video recording of the facial expression of the viewer, text messages that is provided by the viewer view a keyboard or a device, or phrases and chants that are selectable by the viewer via a menu”; Benedetto, ¶ [0032]-[0033]); wherein the generating of the first simulated choral audio chatter based on the speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group includes: generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group and the one or more of the video data, the text data, the gesture data, and the transcription of the audio data (“the sound intensity level associated with the utterances of the viewer can be based on the context of what is occurring in the media event and the meaning of the words expressed by the viewer {based on the speech of the audio data}” which may be received where the context of what is occurring in the media event includes “a video recording of the facial expression of the viewer, text messages that is provided by the viewer view a keyboard or a device, or phrases and chants that are selectable by the viewer via a menu”; Benedetto, ¶ [0032]-[0033], [0038]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson, as modified by the speech privacy and audio environment modification systems of Hillis, to incorporate the teachings of Benedetto to include further comprising: receiving one or more of video data, text data, gesture data, and transcription of the audio data from each of the plurality of users participating in the first group; wherein the generating of the first simulated choral audio chatter based on the speech of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group includes: generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group and the one or more of the video data, the text data, the gesture data, and the transcription of the audio data. The systems and methods of Benedetto provide “enable the verbal expressions of viewers and its corresponding reactions to be used for producing a soundscape for the crowd noise” at media events including blending “together audio of generic crowd noise related to the media event and audio corresponding to one or more reaction states of the viewer” based on multiple contextual factors from the viewers, which “would improve the crowd noise for media events so that the crowd noise sounds more realistic and authentic to the viewers,” and provides the appreciated benefit of improved personalization of crowd noise for separate groups of remote viewers, as recognized by Benedetto. (Benedetto, ¶ [0002], [0005], [0030], [0033]).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Ittelson and Hillis disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. However, Ittelson fails to expressly recite wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group includes: determining an activity level of the first group based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group; and generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on the activity level of the first group.
The relevance of Benedetto is described above with relation to claim 16. Regarding claim 17, Benedetto teaches wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group includes: determining an activity level of the first group based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group (“the cloud service 116 is configured to capture and receive audio data from the viewers 102 of the media event,” which can correspond to “viewers 102a-102b” of “the plurality of viewers 102 a-102 n” including “the verbal expressions and reactions (e.g., utterances)” of the viewers, where “the utterances” as used herein includes “any combination of spoken words, statements, vocal sounds expressed by the viewer” and further “the audio data processor 118 is configured to identify sound intensities associated with each utterance of the viewer” where “The sound intensity level is associated with the loudness of the sound perceived by a person.” {an activity level of the first group based on the audio data}; Benedetto, ¶ [0032]-[0033], [0038]); and generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on the activity level of the first group (“the crowd simulator 122 is configured to produce a soundscape for the crowd noise related to the media event” by blending together audio “related to the media event and audio corresponding to the one or more reaction states of the viewer,” as indicated in part by the sound intensity level; Benedetto, ¶ [0038], [0040]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson, as modified by the speech privacy and audio environment modification systems of Hillis, to incorporate the teachings of Benedetto to include wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group includes: determining an activity level of the first group based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group; and generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on the activity level of the first group. The systems and methods of Benedetto provide “enable the verbal expressions of viewers and its corresponding reactions to be used for producing a soundscape for the crowd noise” at media events including blending “together audio of generic crowd noise related to the media event and audio corresponding to one or more reaction states of the viewer” based on multiple contextual factors from the viewers, which “would improve the crowd noise for media events so that the crowd noise sounds more realistic and authentic to the viewers,” and provides the appreciated benefit of improved personalization of crowd noise for separate groups of remote viewers, as recognized by Benedetto. (Benedetto, ¶ [0002], [0005], [0030], [0033]).
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ittelson, Hillis, and Benedetto as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Harris.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Ittelson, Hillis, and Benedetto disclose all of the elements of the current invention as stated above. Benedetto further discloses wherein determining an activity level of the first group includes: determining the activity level of the first group based on one or more of… a volume (“the cloud service 116 is configured to capture and receive audio data from the viewers 102 of the media event,” which can correspond to “viewers 102a-102b” of “the plurality of viewers 102 a-102 n” including “the verbal expressions and reactions (e.g., utterances)” of the viewers, where “the utterances” as used herein includes “any combination of spoken words, statements, vocal sounds expressed by the viewer” and further “the audio data processor 118 is configured to identify sound intensities associated with each utterance of the viewer” where “The sound intensity level is associated with the loudness of the sound perceived by a person.” {an activity level of the first group based on the audio data}; Benedetto, ¶ [0032]-[0033], [0038]).
The relevance of Benedetto is described above with relation to claim 16. Regarding claim 18, Benedetto teaches wherein determining an activity level of the first group includes: determining the activity level of the first group based on one or more of… a volume (“the cloud service 116 is configured to capture and receive audio data from the viewers 102 of the media event,” which can correspond to “viewers 102a-102b” of “the plurality of viewers 102 a-102 n” including “the verbal expressions and reactions (e.g., utterances)” of the viewers, where “the utterances” as used herein includes “any combination of spoken words, statements, vocal sounds expressed by the viewer” and further “the audio data processor 118 is configured to identify sound intensities associated with each utterance of the viewer” where “The sound intensity level is associated with the loudness of the sound perceived by a person.” {an activity level of the first group based on the audio data}; Benedetto, ¶ [0032]-[0033], [0038]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson, as modified by the speech privacy and audio environment modification systems of Hillis, to incorporate the teachings of Benedetto to include wherein the generated first simulated choral audio chatter based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group includes: determining an activity level of the first group based on the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group; and generating first simulated choral audio chatter based on the activity level of the first group. The systems and methods of Benedetto provide “enable the verbal expressions of viewers and its corresponding reactions to be used for producing a soundscape for the crowd noise” at media events including blending “together audio of generic crowd noise related to the media event and audio corresponding to one or more reaction states of the viewer” based on multiple contextual factors from the viewers, which “would improve the crowd noise for media events so that the crowd noise sounds more realistic and authentic to the viewers,” and provides the appreciated benefit of improved personalization of crowd noise for separate groups of remote viewers, as recognized by Benedetto. (Benedetto, ¶ [0002], [0005], [0030], [0033]). However, Ittelson, Hillis, and Benedetto fail to expressly recite determining activity level based on one or more of a pace, a tone…, and a frequency of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group.
Harris teaches systems and methods for identifying and annotating points of interest in audio content. (Harris, ¶ [0028]). Regarding claim 18, Harris teaches [determining activity level] based on one or more of a pace, a tone, a volume, and a frequency of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group (With respect to audio analysis “the term `energy level` is intended to include, but not be limited to, speaker volume. In addition, energy level can include excitement level, activity level, animation level, or interest level, or the like, measured by speaker(s) volume, pitch, tone, rate of speech, and a rate of change in any of the foregoing or like qualities.”; Harris, ¶ [0029]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the audience response presentation systems of Ittelson, as modified by the speech privacy and audio environment modification systems of Hillis, and as modified by the remote crowd noise generation systems of Benedetto, to incorporate the teachings of Harris to include determining activity level based on one or more of a pace, a tone, a volume, and a frequency of the audio data received from each of the plurality of users in the first group. As explained in Harris, “A point of interest can include a portion of a conversation (102) in which one or more speakers exhibits a higher than typical energy level,” where points of interest and their related audio analysis parameters indicate salient topics and can be applied to detect and improve conversation engagement, as recognized by Harris. (Harris, ¶ [0028], [0051]).
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 Sean E. Serraguard whose telephone number is (313)446-6627. The examiner can normally be reached 07:00-17:00 M-F.
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, Daniel C. Washburn can be reached at (571) 272-5551. 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.
/Sean E Serraguard/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2657