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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments received February 03, 2025 have been fully considered. with regard to 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose “see applicant argument pages 7-9”. This language corresponds to claims 1-4, 7-13 and 15-22.
As such, these have been considered but they are not persuasive as addressed below. See the rejection how the art on record reads on the claimed invention as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set as outlined below.
Furthermore, applicant argues McHugh does not teach in regarding to the claimed invasion “determining that a set of users viewed a given chapter of the plurality of chapters”.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined on previous office action, McHugh teaches: (72) According to one embodiment, at event 3, the web conference tool 206 may enable a user to coordinate, present, and record a review session (e.g., web conference) with one or more participants 408. In one embodiment, the review session may include one or more participants 408 sharing (e.g., via share screen option) and reviewing one or more artifacts 410. For example, a user may share a screen displaying a diagram artifact (e.g., artifact 410) in the artifact tool 208 (e.g., visual modeling tool). Also at event 3, the feedback program 110a, 110b may identify one or more artifact management repositories 214 related to the review session by comparing the group of participants 408 joined in the review session with the listing of contributors 404 in one or more artifact management repositories 214 to identify a match. In another embodiment, the web conference tool 206 may include an associating option 412 which may enable a user, contributor, and/or participant to manually provide the related artifact management repository 214.
McHugh teaches the feedback program 110a, 110b identify one or more artifact management repositories 214 related to the review session by comparing the group of participants 408 joined in the review session with the listing of contributors 404 in one or more artifact management repositories 214 to identify a match. Identifying group of participants and identifying a match defines the process of determining future participant to join the group based on match. As such, the examiner stands with the rejection.
McHugh, col. 15 lines 38-55; emphasis added
Furthermore, applicant argument in regarding the claimed invention “determining a similarity score between a new user outside the set of users and at least one member of the set of users; and transmitting, to a device of the new user outside the set of users, a recommendation to view the given chapter based on the similarity score exceeding a threshold and based on a determination that a user account associated with the new user has access permissions for the given chapter”.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously office action addressed, James teaches:
[0030] FIG. 4A is a graphic representation of an example user interface 400 presented on a client device 915. The user interface 400 includes browser window 402 a having a upper portion 404 indicating that it is a video sharing site and having a search box, a search button, an upload button and identification of the user if she is logged in. The browser window 402 also includes an upload section 406, a help section 408, and a creation section 410. The help section 408 includes help information as well as links to transition to other more detailed help pages. The creation section 410 includes selectable buttons and icons corresponding to recording for web cam capture, creation of a photo slide show, transmission for videoconferencing and editing for a video editor. The upload section 406 provides an area in which video files for uploading to the video sharing service can be selected or “dragged and dropped.” The upload section 406 also includes a drop-down menu 412 for selecting whether the video files uploaded will be publicly shared, privately shared, or unlisted (not shared). The upload section 406 also includes an area 414 including a box for the user to input names, groups or email addresses of the users with which the uploaded video will be shared. The present disclosure advantageously also includes an additional area 416 for presenting recommended pre-constructed groups with which to share an uploaded video. The additional area 416 includes a box 420 including one or more icons 418 representing different groups with which the uploaded video may be shared. In this example, there are five recommended groups as represented by the five icons 418 in box 420. It should be understood that in FIG. 4A the icons 418 are represented by ovals. These icons 418 may have various other shapes and specific examples of icons will be described in more detail below with reference to FIGS. 5-8. It should be noted that this user interface 400 is particularly advantageous because it allows a user to share a video with a new group simply by selecting the recommended group from those listed in the box. For example, an icon 418 may be selected using the cursor. In some implementations, as the user moves the cursor over the icon 418 a list of users that are part of the recommended group are displayed below the selected icon.
[0031] FIG. 4B is a graphic representation of an example user interface 430 presented on a client device 915. The user interface 430 includes a browser window 402 having an upper portion 404, a video player window 422, a recommended video area 424, a control area 428, a sharing area 432 and other portions. The video player window 422 provides an area for the display videos. The recommended video area 424 presents a plurality of thumbnail images and corresponding titles and authors of the videos. The thumbnails and the titles are selectable for display of that corresponding video in the video player window 422. Near the video player window 422 is the control area 428. The control area 428 provides feedback on the frame of the video being presented, controls for the presentation of the video such as frame rate, sound, pause, play, etc., and metadata associated with the video being displayed including the title, author and the number of views. The user interface 430 advantageously includes a sharing area 432 that enables the user to share the video being displayed in the video player window 422. The sharing area 432 includes a box including icons representing various users that are selectable to share the video with a particular user. The sharing area 432 also includes the additional area 416 to present recommended groups. Similar to the interface described above with reference to FIG. 4A, the additional area 416 includes a box 420 to present a plurality of icons 418 representing different groups with which to share the video being displayed. The icons 418 in the box for 20 have functionality similar to that described above with reference to FIG. 4A. As noted above, this user interface 430 is particularly advantageous because it allows the user with single click of an icon 418 to share the video being displayed with a recommended group and add/create that recommended group to the user's group list.
[0025] FIG. 2B is a flow chart of an example method 250 for interacting with a conversation-based software application where group recommendation may be used. The method 250 determines 252 whether a user wishes to access an existing conversation (if not is assumed they are accessing a new conversation). If the user wishes to access an existing conversation, the method 250 determines 254 the users that have already contributed to the existing conversation since the user may be added to the group of the existing conversation. For example, a user may notice an ongoing conversation about a topic that interests her and may therefore request access to the existing conversation. Next, the method determines 256 if a group of users matching those identified in block 254 exists. If so, the method 250 need only at the first user to the existing group to create the new group in block 258. If not, the method 250 pre-constructs 258 a group with the users identified in block 254 and the first user……..
[0036] The existing conversations section 474 may list a set of existing conversations. The set of existing conversations, may be ordered by recency and/or whether the conversations has been read or accessed by the user. The existing conversations section 474 may also include an icon for the conversation and/or group and an indicator (e.g. “*”) to indicate whether a conversation has been read or accessed by the user, as indicated by 478a-j. The existing conversations may also contain a group name. Group names may be generated through a common interest (e.g. a team name or university) or may be a concatenation of the names of the members of the group. In this way, group names may be automated through use of the automated group recommendation module 903.
[0037] The group suggestions section 476 may allow a user to see suggestion of which existing groups and/or conversations the user should look into joining. These suggestions may be based on common interests, common friends on a social network, common browsing behaviors, etc.
[0038] The new conversations section 472 allows to request group recommendations. The conversation, for example, may be relatively integrated with conversations. For example, a user may need to be added to a group before accessing a conversation associated with the group.
Art of James clearly defines creating a group based a topic or common interest within group and recommending a new user or group to join based on similarity to the existing group. The art of James teaches identifying a new user to join the group based on common interest or common topics. The system teaches the use of sharing data between groups and outside of groups by identifying specific sharing address to each member of the groups (the sharing data can be video file or other data). The shared data with another user can be based on recommended or recommendation. Therefore, the examiner stands with the rejection since art of James teaches implicitly or explicitly recommending to reviewing data with other users based on common interest.
Applicant argument in regarding the motivation to combination art of McHugh and James, the examiner stands with the rejection, since both inventions are with similar categories of at least sharing data. Further the reason to combine art of James with art of McHugh provided on previous office action. As such, the examiner stands with the rejection.
Applicant argument in regarding to claim 2, the examiner stands with the rejection since McHugh teaches at least AI component 220 may create a review session segment by creating indexes within the recorded review session that marks the start and end of an artifact topic discussion. In one embodiment, the AI component 220 may utilize natural language processing (NLP) to identify topic discussions in the review session and match those discussions in the review session to the names of artifacts and artifact elements (e.g., design/architecture artifacts and/or artifact elements) in an associated artifact management repository 214.
Furthermore, McHugh teaches the feedback program 110a, 110b may implement the AI component 220 to recognize the artifacts referenced during the recorded review session and generate a detailed association between those segments (e.g., timestamps) in the recording with the corresponding artifacts in the artifact management repository 214. According to one embodiment, the AI component 220 may utilize deep learning techniques to train, calculate weights, ingest inputs, and output a plurality of solution vectors. In this embodiment, inputs may include audio sessions, audio session excerpts or segments, video sessions, video session excerpts or segments, audio extracted from a video session or segment, text (e.g., conversational text from video/audio session participants, text within video/audio content, chat stream) extracted from a video/audio session or segment, and video or images extracted from a video session or segment. In one embodiment, the solution vectors may include related artifact management repositories 214, design/architecture artifacts and/or artifact elements associated with probabilistic values. According to one embodiment, the AI component 220 may apply a machine learning model to identify the one or more artifacts referenced within the review session and associate the referenced one or more artifacts with the one or more corresponding artifacts contained in the artifact management repository 214. In various embodiments,
McHugh, col. 9 lines 58 to col. 10 line 10, emphasis added.
Applicant argument in regarding to claim 4, the examiner stands with the rejection since McHugh, at least teaches the review session may include one or more participants 408 sharing (e.g., via share screen option) and reviewing one or more artifacts 410. For example, a user may share a screen displaying a diagram artifact (e.g., artifact 410) in the artifact tool 208 (e.g., visual modeling tool). Also at event 3, the feedback program 110a, 110b may identify one or more artifact management repositories 214 related to the review session by comparing the group of participants 408 joined in the review session with the listing of contributors 404 in one or more artifact management repositories 214 to identify a match. As such, the system of McHugh identifies participating by referencing to management repositories to find a match and the system process data accordingly.
Applicant argument in regarding to claims 21 and 22, the examiner stands with the rejection since the cited art clearly teaches the claimed invention as outlined under 103 rejection below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McHugh et al. US 11,558,213 and further in view of James et al. US 2016/0021179.
In regarding to claim 1 McHugh teaches:
1. A method, comprising: identifying, using a chapter identification engine, a plurality of chapters in a recording of a video conference based on stored metadata of the recording,
(44) According to one embodiment, the web conference tool 206 may include one or more programs configured to enable a user to coordinate, present, and record a review session (e.g., video conference) with one or more collaborators, participants, and/or other relevant stakeholders. In one embodiment, the feedback program 110a, 110b may utilize or direct the web conference tool 206 to record and store the review session in the recording storage 212 (e.g., recording annotations and archive storage). In another embodiment, the feedback program 110a, 110b may also utilize or direct the web conference tool 206 to insert tags or links in a review session recording segment referencing an artifact to direct a user from the recorded review session segment to the referenced artifact via the artifact tool 208, as will be discussed further below.
McHugh, col. 8 line 46 to col. 9 line 3, emphasis added
wherein each chapter is associated with a start timestamp and an end timestamp;
(54) According to one embodiment, the AI component 220 may create a review session segment by creating indexes within the recorded review session that marks the start and end of an artifact topic discussion. In one embodiment, the AI component 220 may utilize natural language processing (NLP) to identify topic discussions in the review session and match those discussions in the review session to the names of artifacts and artifact elements (e.g., design/architecture artifacts and/or artifact elements) in an associated artifact management repository 214. In this embodiment, the AI component 220 may utilize NLP to identify a plurality of topics (e.g., design/architecture artifacts and elements identified by number, name, namespace, and other parameters including version, model, and component hierarchy) identified in the video, audio, and/or text contained in the recorded review session. For example, AI component 220 may parse text extracted from a chat or audio conversation in the review session and implement NLP techniques, such as, for example, syntactic analysis to identify parts of speech and syntactic relations between various portions of the extracted text. In this embodiment, the AI component 220 may convert the extracted audio into a textual format. In a further embodiment, the AI component 220 may utilize parts-of-speech tagging to identify the particular parts-of-speech of one or more words in the text based on its relationship with adjacent and related words. In an embodiment, the AI component 220 may utilize the aforementioned techniques to determine an associated topic for content contained in a review session segment.
(57) According to one embodiment, the tagging component 222 may tag segments (e.g., timestamps) of the recorded review session with one or more artifact information, such as, for example, a name of the artifact, a number identifier of the artifact (e.g., GUID), a namespace of the artifact, a version of the artifact, a model associated with the artifact, and a component hierarchy associated with the artifact. In one embodiment, the tagged recording segments may also include a link (e.g., URL) to the associated artifact management repository 214. According to one embodiment, the tagging component 222 may tag the referenced artifacts (stored in an associated artifact management repository 214) with a link (e.g., URL to specific timestamps) to the recorded review session. According to one embodiment, the feedback program 110a, 110b may continue to update the bi-directional deep tags/links as artifact development continues. In this embodiment, the tagging component 222 may dynamically update previously tagged recorded review sessions based on changes to one or more artifact management repositories 214. Further, if a user views the recorded review session after changes have been made to a referenced artifact, the deep tagging may dynamically open the version of the referenced artifact that is pertinent to the recorded review session.
McHugh, col. 11 lines 34-62, col. 12 lines 28-51, emphasis added
storing identifiers of the plurality of chapters in association with the recording;
(57) According to one embodiment, the tagging component 222 may tag segments (e.g., timestamps) of the recorded review session with one or more artifact information, such as, for example, a name of the artifact, a number identifier of the artifact (e.g., GUID), a namespace of the artifact, a version of the artifact, a model associated with the artifact, and a component hierarchy associated with the artifact. In one embodiment, the tagged recording segments may also include a link (e.g., URL) to the associated artifact management repository 214. According to one embodiment, the tagging component 222 may tag the referenced artifacts (stored in an associated artifact management repository 214) with a link (e.g., URL to specific timestamps) to the recorded review session. According to one embodiment, the feedback program 110a, 110b may continue to update the bi-directional deep tags/links as artifact development continues. In this embodiment, the tagging component 222 may dynamically update previously tagged recorded review sessions based on changes to one or more artifact management repositories 214. Further, if a user views the recorded review session after changes have been made to a referenced artifact, the deep tagging may dynamically open the version of the referenced artifact that is pertinent to the recorded review session.
McHugh, col. 11 lines 34-62, col. 12 lines 28-51, emphasis added
receiving a user input requesting a portion of the recording of the video conference corresponding to a subset of the plurality of chapters;
(23) As such, the present embodiment has the capacity to improve the technical field of engineering lifecycle management and provide feedback with more context, by linking conversation streams of a review session referencing a particular artifact (e.g., providing feedback on the work product) to the corresponding artifact within a native tool associated with the artifact (e.g., artifact viewing/editing tool). More specifically, a feedback program may record a review session referencing one or more artifacts of a software development project. Then, the feedback program may associate the recorded review session with a repository storing the referenced artifacts. Next, the feedback program may identify one or more segments of the recorded review session referring to the artifact. Then, the feedback program may tag the recording segment referring to the artifact (e.g., timestamp) with a link to the corresponding artifact within an artifact viewing/editing tool and tag the corresponding artifact within the artifact viewing/editing tool with a link to the recording segment referring to the artifact. Thereafter, the feedback program may present the tagged recorded review session (e.g., in playback tool) with links to directly access the artifact within the artifact viewing/editing tool and present the tagged artifact (e.g., in the artifact viewing/editing tool) with links to the recording segment.
(45) According to one embodiment, the recording playback tool 210 may include a stand-alone tool or may be part of the web conference tool 206 and be configured to enable a user to consume (e.g., view and/or listen) a playback of the recorded review session. In one embodiment, the feedback program 110a, 110b may also utilize or direct the recording playback tool 210 to display, at the segments (e.g., timestamps) of the recorded review session (e.g., recorded video and/or audio conference), tags or links to the referenced artifacts.
McHugh, col. 4 lines 36-59, col. 8 line 61 to col.9 line 3, emphasis added
and providing, in response to the user input, the portion of the recording of the video conference;
(23) As such, the present embodiment has the capacity to improve the technical field of engineering lifecycle management and provide feedback with more context, by linking conversation streams of a review session referencing a particular artifact (e.g., providing feedback on the work product) to the corresponding artifact within a native tool associated with the artifact (e.g., artifact viewing/editing tool). More specifically, a feedback program may record a review session referencing one or more artifacts of a software development project. Then, the feedback program may associate the recorded review session with a repository storing the referenced artifacts. Next, the feedback program may identify one or more segments of the recorded review session referring to the artifact. Then, the feedback program may tag the recording segment referring to the artifact (e.g., timestamp) with a link to the corresponding artifact within an artifact viewing/editing tool and tag the corresponding artifact within the artifact viewing/editing tool with a link to the recording segment referring to the artifact. Thereafter, the feedback program may present the tagged recorded review session (e.g., in playback tool) with links to directly access the artifact within the artifact viewing/editing tool and present the tagged artifact (e.g., in the artifact viewing/editing tool) with links to the recording segment.
(45) According to one embodiment, the recording playback tool 210 may include a stand-alone tool or may be part of the web conference tool 206 and be configured to enable a user to consume (e.g., view and/or listen) a playback of the recorded review session. In one embodiment, the feedback program 110a, 110b may also utilize or direct the recording playback tool 210 to display, at the segments (e.g., timestamps) of the recorded review session (e.g., recorded video and/or audio conference), tags or links to the referenced artifacts.
McHugh, col. 4 lines 36-59, col. 8 line 61 to col.9 line 3, emphasis added
determining that a set of users viewed a given chapter of the plurality of chapters;
(72) According to one embodiment, at event 3, the web conference tool 206 may enable a user to coordinate, present, and record a review session (e.g., web conference) with one or more participants 408. In one embodiment, the review session may include one or more participants 408 sharing (e.g., via share screen option) and reviewing one or more artifacts 410. For example, a user may share a screen displaying a diagram artifact (e.g., artifact 410) in the artifact tool 208 (e.g., visual modeling tool). Also at event 3, the feedback program 110a, 110b may identify one or more artifact management repositories 214 related to the review session by comparing the group of participants 408 joined in the review session with the listing of contributors 404 in one or more artifact management repositories 214 to identify a match. In another embodiment, the web conference tool 206 may include an associating option 412 which may enable a user, contributor, and/or participant to manually provide the related artifact management repository 214.
McHugh, col. 15 lines 38-55; emphasis added
(51) According to one embodiment, the feedback program 110a, 110b may implement the associating component 218 to associate a recorded review session with one or more repositories (e.g., artifact management repository 214) storing the referenced artifacts. In an embodiment, the associating component 218 may identify one or more artifact management repositories 214 related to the recorded review session by utilizing metadata to identify review session participants and artifact stakeholders. More specifically, the feedback program 110a, 110b may compare the list of all invited participants in the meeting invite (e.g., via calendar tool 204) and/or participants in the recorded review session with a list of contributors associated with one or more artifact management repositories 214. For example, responsive to the associating component 218 determining that each of the participants in the recorded review session are also contributors associated with the artifact management repository 214 storing a given artifact, the associating component 218 may associate the recorded review session with that artifact management repository 214. In another embodiment, a user, contributor, and/or participant may provide the related artifact management repository 214 as part of the meeting details via the calendar tool 204 or web conference tool 206.
McHugh, col. 10 lines 28-67; emphasis added
However, McHugh fails to explicitly teach, but James teaches:
determining a similarity score between a new user outside the set of users and at least one member of the set of users; and transmitting, to a device of the new user outside the set of users, a recommendation to view the given chapter based on the similarity score exceeding a threshold and based on a determination that a user account associated with the new user has access permissions for the given chapter.
[0024] The method 220 begins by identifying 200 the first user. For example, the method 220 may receive a request from a user or a third party service. The method 220 may recognize the user through a user ID and password associated with the user 920 or the client device 915. The method 220 may also recognize the user through use of the web browser 950. The web browser 950 may have browser cookies which may be used to identify the user. As a yet further example, the client device 915 may be recognized through an internet protocol (IP) address. This may also be done using the username and password for the social network 909. Regardless, the request may be associated with a user, and from the request the identity of the user determined. Various other identifications of the user can be used and are one input that may be used to pre-construct 104 one or more groups. Next, the method 220 retrieves 202 profile or meta-data for the first user. For example, the method 220 may receive profile data, including but not limited to, gender, residence area, interests, age, hobbies, photo, education, employer, profession, etc. about the first user from the social network application 909. In some implementations, the method 220 may receive profile data from other services depicted in FIG. 9. User metadata, for example, the company they work at or the school they attended might be used to identify users who are part of a community or family. Next, the method 220 retrieves 204 content metadata related to the first user. For example, if the first user is identified in a photo or video along with other users that content metadata may be used to suggest the inclusion of the other users in the photo for a possible group. Next the method 220 retrieves 206 browser or viewing history for the first user. The browser reviewing history may provide indications of recentness and topics about which the user is interested. These topics can be used to pre-construct 104 groups of users. Next, the method 220 receives 208 an explicit input of the first user. For example, the explicit input may be any input to the video sharing server 911 or the social network application 909 or any other input to any of the services depicted in FIG. 9. As a few illustrative examples, these explicit inputs may include a user visiting a website, posting a comment on a comment thread, endorsing content, performing a search, viewing a video, interactions with the video, interactions on the social network, etc. Next, the method 220 retrieves 210 inferred data for the first user. The inferred data may be based on the user's interaction with the social network application 909. This information can be used to better formulate and construct possible groups of users. Next, the method 220 determines 212 co-presence or proximity of the first user to other users. For example, the social network 909 in combination with other mobile technologies may be able to identify when the first user is with one or more other users in a conference room or located at the same restaurant. The co-presence data might be used to recommend groups of users who with each other at a given time and have a particular social relationship with each other. Similarly, proximity data might be used to recommend groups of users who are nearby each other and have another common factor, e.g., friends. Next the method 220 retrieves 214 social information about a first user and other users. For example, the method 220 can use posts, comments or endorsements to recommend groups of users who are interested in the same content. Similarly, various user edge affinity scores from the social network 909 might be used to find sets of other users and also used to filter users with stronger ties than others. It should be understood that any one or more of the above inputs may be combined to determine other users that could be included in a group. More specifically, two or more of the above inputs may be combined to better define the pre-constructed group and make it more relevant to the first user. For example, if a few users perform a search relating to topic ‘A’ and those same users comment on a video on a website related to topic ‘A’, the users may be identified as a possible group recommendation.
James, 0021, 0024-0025, 0030, 0036-0038 and fig. 9, emphasis added.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of James with the teaching of McHugh in order determining a similarity score between a new user outside the set of users and at least one member of the set of users; and transmitting, to a device of the new user outside the set of users, a recommendation to view the given chapter based on the similarity score exceeding a threshold and based on a determination that a user account associated with the new user has access permissions for the given chapter, as such, the creating of groups highly beneficial for the proliferation of the social network and curation of content..--Abstract.
Note: The motivation that was applied to claim 1 above, applies equally as well to claim 2-4, 6-13 and 15-22 as presented blow.
In regarding to claim 2 McHugh and James teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, further McHugh teaches wherein the chapter identification engine uses artificial intelligence, wherein the chapter identification engine is trained based on portions of recordings viewed by one or more viewers and prompts, to the one or more viewers, to confirm a time in a viewed recording associated with a start timestamp or an end timestamp of a chapter.
(24) As described previously, software development is a collaborative process relying on the efforts of cross-discipline teams. With software development projects, it is common practice to share and review the work done by each team on regular intervals. These review sessions enable stakeholders to understand the work in progress, facilitate the communication of requirements, speed decision-making, and improve the quality of the project. However, often times, scheduling conflicts may prevent a project collaborator or other stakeholder from attending one or more review sessions. Current solutions lack the ability to capture the discussions from these review sessions in a meaningful way for anyone who was not able to attend. Further, current solutions lack an automated method to identify the specific artifacts referenced in a review session to enable those who did not attend the review session to quickly navigate to the specific artifact without traversing the entire recording of the review session.
(72) According to one embodiment, at event 3, the web conference tool 206 may enable a user to coordinate, present, and record a review session (e.g., web conference) with one or more participants 408. In one embodiment, the review session may include one or more participants 408 sharing (e.g., via share screen option) and reviewing one or more artifacts 410. For example, a user may share a screen displaying a diagram artifact (e.g., artifact 410) in the artifact tool 208 (e.g., visual modeling tool). Also at event 3, the feedback program 110a, 110b may identify one or more artifact management repositories 214 related to the review session by comparing the group of participants 408 joined in the review session with the listing of contributors 404 in one or more artifact management repositories 214 to identify a match. In another embodiment, the web conference tool 206 may include an associating option 412 which may enable a user, contributor, and/or participant to manually provide the related artifact management repository 214.
(54) According to one embodiment, the AI component 220 may create a review session segment by creating indexes within the recorded review session that marks the start and end of an artifact topic discussion. In one embodiment, the AI component 220 may utilize natural language processing (NLP) to identify topic discussions in the review session and match those discussions in the review session to the names of artifacts and artifact elements (e.g., design/architecture artifacts and/or artifact elements) in an associated artifact management repository 214. In this embodiment, the AI component 220 may utilize NLP to identify a plurality of topics (e.g., design/architecture artifacts and elements identified by number, name, namespace, and other parameters including version, model, and component hierarchy) identified in the video, audio, and/or text contained in the recorded review session. For example, AI component 220 may parse text extracted from a chat or audio conversation in the review session and implement NLP techniques, such as, for example, syntactic analysis to identify parts of speech and syntactic relations between various portions of the extracted text. In this embodiment, the AI component 220 may convert the extracted audio into a textual format. In a further embodiment, the AI component 220 may utilize parts-of-speech tagging to identify the particular parts-of-speech of one or more words in the text based on its relationship with adjacent and related words. In an embodiment, the AI component 220 may utilize the aforementioned techniques to determine an associated topic for content contained in a review session segment.
McHugh, col. 4 line 60 to col. 5 line 22; col. 11 lines 34-62, col. 15 lines 38-55; emphasis added
In regarding to claim 3 McHugh and James teaches:
3. The method of claim 1, further McHugh teaches wherein the stored metadata comprises at least one of: an agenda of the video conference, text in presented slides, an identity of a speaker, words spoken by the speaker, an identity of an attendee, a recess in the video conference, or a part of a recording viewed by a viewer.
(72) According to one embodiment, at event 3, the web conference tool 206 may enable a user to coordinate, present, and record a review session (e.g., web conference) with one or more participants 408. In one embodiment, the review session may include one or more participants 408 sharing (e.g., via share screen option) and reviewing one or more artifacts 410. For example, a user may share a screen displaying a diagram artifact (e.g., artifact 410) in the artifact tool 208 (e.g., visual modeling tool). Also at event 3, the feedback program 110a, 110b may identify one or more artifact management repositories 214 related to the review session by comparing the group of participants 408 joined in the review session with the listing of contributors 404 in one or more artifact management repositories 214 to identify a match. In another embodiment, the web conference tool 206 may include an associating option 412 which may enable a user, contributor, and/or participant to manually provide the related artifact management repository 214.
McHugh, col. 10 line 53 to col. 11 line 21; col. 15 lines 38-55; emphasis added
In regarding to claim 4 McHugh and James teaches:
4. The method of claim 1, further McHugh teaches wherein the stored metadata comprises identifiers of users requesting the recording and not participating in the video conference, and stored data related to the users.
(72) According to one embodiment, at event 3, the web conference tool 206 may enable a user to coordinate, present, and record a review session (e.g., web conference) with one or more participants 408. In one embodiment, the review session may include one or more participants 408 sharing (e.g., via share screen option) and reviewing one or more artifacts 410. For example, a user may share a screen displaying a diagram artifact (e.g., artifact 410) in the artifact tool 208 (e.g., visual modeling tool). Also at event 3, the feedback program 110a, 110b may identify one or more artifact management repositories 214 related to the review session by comparing the group of participants 408 joined in the review session with the listing of contributors 404 in one or more artifact management repositories 214 to identify a match. In another embodiment, the web conference tool 206 may include an associating option 412 which may enable a user, contributor, and/or participant to manually provide the related artifact management repository 214.
McHugh, col. 15 lines 38-55; emphasis added
In regarding to claim 5 McHugh and James teaches:
5. The method of claim 1, further McHugh teaches comprising: determining that a set of users viewed a given chapter of the plurality of chapters;
(72) According to one embodiment, at event 3, the web conference tool 206 may enable a user to coordinate, present, and record a review session (e.g., web conference) with one or more participants 408. In one embodiment, the review session may include one or more participants 408 sharing (e.g., via share screen option) and reviewing one or more artifacts 410. For example, a user may share a screen displaying a diagram artifact (e.g., artifact 410) in the artifact tool 208 (e.g., visual modeling tool). Also at event 3, the feedback program 110a, 110b may identify one or more artifact management repositories 214 related to the review session by comparing the group of participants 408 joined in the review session with the listing of contributors 404 in one or more artifact management repositories 214 to identify a match. In another embodiment, the web conference tool 206 may include an associating option 412 which may enable a user, contributor, and/or participant to manually provide the related artifact management repository 214.
McHugh, col. 15 lines 38-55; emphasis added
and transmitting, to a device of a new user outside the set of users, a recommendation to view the given chapter based on a common feature of the new user and at least one member of the set of users.
(72) According to one embodiment, at event 3, the web conference tool 206 may enable a user to coordinate, present, and record a review session (e.g., web conference) with one or more participants 408. In one embodiment, the review session may include one or more participants 408 sharing (e.g., via share screen option) and reviewing one or more artifacts 410. For example, a user may share a screen displaying a diagram artifact (e.g., artifact 410) in the artifact tool 208 (e.g., visual modeling tool). Also at event 3, the feedback program 110a, 110b may identify one or more artifact management repositories 214 related to the review session by comparing the group of participants 408 joined in the review session with the listing of contributors 404 in one or more artifact management repositories 214 to identify a match. In another embodiment, the web conference tool 206 may include an associating option 412 which may enable a user, contributor, and/or participant to manually provide the related artifact management repository 214.
McHugh, col. 15 lines 38-55; emphasis added
In regarding to claim 6 McHugh and James teaches:
6. The method of claim 1, further McHugh teaches wherein providing the portion of the recording comprises providing a hyperlink to view the portion of the recording, the method further comprising: determining whether a user providing the user input has permission to download the portion of the recording; and if the user has permission to download the recording: providing a hyperlink to download the portion of the recording.
(23) As such, the present embodiment has the capacity to improve the technical field of engineering lifecycle management and provide feedback with more context, by linking conversation streams of a review session referencing a particular artifact (e.g., providing feedback on the work product) to the corresponding artifact within a native tool associated with the artifact (e.g., artifact viewing/editing tool). More specifically, a feedback program may record a review session referencing one or more artifacts of a software development project. Then, the feedback program may associate the recorded review session with a repository storing the referenced artifacts. Next, the feedback program may identify one or more segments of the recorded review session referring to the artifact. Then, the feedback program may tag the recording segment referring to the artifact (e.g., timestamp) with a link to the corresponding artifact within an artifact viewing/editing tool and tag the corresponding artifact within the artifact viewing/editing tool with a link to the recording segment referring to the artifact. Thereafter, the feedback program may present the tagged recorded review session (e.g., in playback tool) with links to directly access the artifact within the artifact viewing/editing tool and present the tagged artifact (e.g., in the artifact viewing/editing tool) with links to the recording segment.
(56) According to one embodiment, the feedback program 110a, 110b may implement the tagging component 222 to generate a bi-directional tag, link (e.g., uniform resource locator (URL)), or any other association between the one or more recorded review session segments referencing an artifact and the referenced artifact stored in the associated artifact management repository 214. In one embodiment, the bi-directional tagging link may point into the artifact files at specific images, structured language sections, or any other artifact element and from there to segments of the recorded review session referring to that artifact.
McHugh, col. 4 lines 36-59; col. 12 lines 17-51; emphasis added
In regarding to claim 7 McHugh and James teaches:
7. The method of claim 1, further McHugh teaches wherein the chapters in the plurality of chapters are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.
McHugh, col. 12 lines 17-51
In regarding to claim 8 McHugh and James teaches:
8. The method of claim 1, further McHugh teaches wherein a first chapter of the plurality of chapters overlaps with a second chapter of the plurality of chapters.
McHugh, col. 13 lines 13-29
In regarding to claim 9 McHugh and James teaches:
9. The method of claim 1, further McHugh teaches wherein a portion of the recording is not associated with any chapter of the plurality of chapters.
McHugh, col. 12 lines 17-51
Claims 10-13, 15-16 list all similar elements of claims 1-4 and 7, but in computer readable medium form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-4 and 7 applies equally as well to claims 10-13, 15-16.
Claims 17-20 list all similar elements of claims 1-3 and 7, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-3 and 7 applies equally as well to claims 17-20.
In regarding to claim 21 McHugh and James teaches:
21. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of users viewed the given chapter after the given chapter was stored.
James, 0036-0038
In regarding to claim 22 McHugh and James teaches:
22. The method of claim 1, wherein the similarity score is determined between the new user and all members of the set of users.
James, 0036-0038
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL T TEKLE whose telephone number is (571)270-1117. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30 ET.
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, William Vaughn can be reached on 571-272-3922. 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.
/DANIEL T TEKLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights