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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 28, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks, filed on 1/28/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baldwin, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0124189 (hereinafter Baldwin).
As per claim 1, Baldwin teaches the invention as claim comprising:
accessing, by one or more processors, a request to initiate and perform a live analysis of at least a portion of media that both originated in and is being communicated during a same synchronous communication session, the request corresponding to an account at a multitenant platform ([24][25][29][37], e.g., accessing command/instruction/opt-in to monitor and perform analysis of on-going conversation of a voice call, the opt-in corresponding to user setting/profile at a multitenant platform);
causing, by the one or more processors, an analysis service to initiate and perform the requested live analysis of at least the portion of the media during the same synchronous communication session in which the portion of media both originated and is being communicated, the live analysis during the same synchronous communication session being based on a policy that corresponds to the account, the analysis service generating a result during the same synchronous communication session in which the portion of media both originated and is being communicated based on the live analysis of at least the portion of the media during the same synchronous communication session in which the portion of media both originated and is being communicated ([32][34], e.g., causing analysis of on-going conversation during the voice call, the analysis during the voice call being based on user preference/settings ([57][34][37]), the analysis generating solution or additional information during the voice call/conversation ([34][35][38][41])); and
initiating, by the one or more processors during the same synchronous communication session in which the portion of media originated and is being communicated, an event based on the result generated by the analysis service during the same synchronous communication session in which the portion of media both originated and is being communicated ([35][38][41], e.g., initiating, during the same voice call/conversation, an event (e.g., join the conversation, etc.) based on the solution/additional information by the analysis).
As per claim 2, Baldwin teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Baldwin further teach comprising: receiving a command to invoke the analysis service in relation to the same synchronous communication session in which the portion of media both originated and is being communicated ([44][24][25][29][37]); and wherein:
the causing of the analysis service to perform the live analysis of at least the portion of the media is in response to the received command to invoke the analysis service in relation to the same synchronous communication session in which the portion of media both originated and is being communicated ([44][24][25][29][37]).
As per claim 4, Baldwin teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Baldwin further teach wherein: the initiating of the event based on the result generated by the analysis service includes communicating the result generated by the analysis service to a device that corresponds to the account ([38][41][42]).
As per claim 5, Baldwin teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Baldwin further teach wherein: the initiating of the event based on the result generated by the analysis service includes updating a record that corresponds to the account ([41][57], e.g., re-evaluating use’s goal and providing new solution; updating the calendar).
As per claim 6, Baldwin teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Baldwin further teach wherein: the causing of the analysis service to perform the live analysis of at least the portion of the media is in response to a command received from a device ([24][25][29][37]); and the initiating of the event based on the result generated by the analysis service includes communicating the result generated by the analysis service to the device from which the command is received ([24][25][29][35][37][38][41][42]).
As per claim 7, Baldwin teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Baldwin further teach wherein: the analysis service includes at least one of a sentiment detection service, an emotion detection service, or an intent detection service ([33][34][35][38][57]).
As per claims 8 and 15, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above. See figure 11 of Baldwin for A system comprising: one or more processors; and a machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations of claim 1.
As per claims 9 and 16, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2 above.
As per claims 11 and 18, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4 above.
As per claims 12 and 19, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5 above.
As per claims 13 and 20, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 above.
As per claim 14, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7 above.
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 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 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin in view of Connolly et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0350435 (hereinafter Connolly).
As per claim 3, Baldwin teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Baldwin teaches wherein: the causing of the analysis service to perform the live analysis of at least the portion of the media is in response to a command to invoke the analysis service in relation to the same synchronous communication session in which the portion of media both originated and is being communicated ([44][24][25][29][37]), however, Baldwin is silent in regards to the command being received from an application server that corresponds to the account. Connolly teaches the causing of the analysis service to perform the live analysis of at least the portion of the media is in response to a command to invoke the analysis service in relation to the same synchronous communication session in which the portion of media both originated and is being communicated, the command being received from an application server that corresponds to the account ([111][135][141][142][63][75]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Connolly’s teaching with Baldwin’s system in order to include other types of UE to utilize Baldwin’s system, thus increasing the field of use of Baldwin’s system.
As per claims 10 and 17, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this
application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair- direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights