DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Applicant’s submission, received on March 4, 2026, amending claims 1, 7, 12-14, 18 and 20.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 13-15, 17-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0274914 to Vazquez et al. (“Vazquez”), over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0215375 to Dong et al. (“Dong”), and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0111323 to Taghaddos et al. (“Taghaddos”).
Regarding claims 1, 14 and 18, Vazquez describes systems and methods for collaborations in which, e.g., a moderator and one or more participants can be located in one location and other participants can be located in one or more other, remote locations (see e.g. paragraph 0012). Like claimed, Vazquez particularly teaches:
establishing a virtual conference among a host device and a plurality of participant devices (see e.g. paragraphs 0206 and 0210, and FIG. 6: Vazquez describes a collaboration system in which a moderator operating a first device instructs a back end to provide web content for display on a plurality of other participant devices. The moderator thus establishes a virtual conference among a host device, i.e. the moderator’s device, and a plurality of participant devices.);
receiving, during the virtual conference, a start-triggering signal from the host device to start an interactive session, the start-triggering signal being generated by activating a user interface element corresponding to a combination of pre-defined interaction options, wherein the combination of pre-defined interaction options is selected from a plurality of combinations of pre-defined interaction options mapped to a plurality of user interface elements (see e.g. paragraphs 0207, 0210, 0214 and 0215: Vazquez discloses that, while the web content is displayed on the plurality of devices, the moderator can select and launch a type of “digital interactive dialog window” to be displayed on each of the participant devices. In particular, the moderator can select from a menu of different types digital interactive dialog windows, a plurality of which comprise different combinations of interaction options such as selectable “yes” and “no” answer choices and different multiple-choice options – see e.g. paragraph 0214 and FIG. 11. Vazquez further discloses that, in conjunction with the digital interactive dialog window, a question is presented to the participants via the web content and/or audibly via a stream from the moderator’s device – see e.g. paragraphs 0208 and 0217-0222. The participants respond to the question via the combination of interaction options presented via the interactive dialog window – see e.g. paragraphs 0212, 0213 and 0217-0222. The moderator input for selecting the digital interactive dialog window is thus considered a start-triggering signal to start an interactive session like claimed, the start-triggering signal being generated by activating a user interface element corresponding to a combination of pre-defined interaction options, i.e. by activating a menu item corresponding to a type of interactive dialog window having a combination of predefined answer choices. The combination of pre-defined interaction options is selected from a plurality of combinations of pre-defined interaction options mapped to a plurality of user interface elements, i.e. the combination of pre-defined interaction options is selected from a plurality of types of interactive dialog windows, each having a different combination of answer choices, mapped to a plurality of menu items.);
in response to receiving the start-triggering signal, generating an interactive component for the interactive session based on a combination of interaction options, the interactive component comprising a user interface (UI) element presenting the combination of interaction options (see e.g. paragraphs 0207, 0210, 0212, 0214 and 0215, and FIG. 9: as noted above, Vazquez discloses that the moderator can select and launch a type of digital interactive dialog window to be displayed on each of the participant devices, wherein the digital interactive dialog window can comprise a combination of pre-defined interaction options such as selectable “yes” and “no” choices. Thus, in response to receiving the start-triggering signal, i.e. in response to receiving the moderator input for selecting the digital interactive dialog window, the system generates an interactive component for the interactive session based on a combination of interaction options, the interactive component for the virtual conference comprising a user interface element, i.e. a digital interactive dialog window, presenting the combination of interaction options.);
causing the UI element presenting the combination of interaction options to be displayed in respective participant UIs of the virtual conference on the plurality of participant devices (see e.g. paragraphs 0207, 0210, 0212, 0214 and 0215, and FIG. 9: as noted above, Vazquez discloses that the moderator can select and launch a type of digital interactive dialog window to be displayed on each of the participant devices, wherein the digital interactive dialog window can comprise a combination of pre-defined interaction options such as selectable “yes” and “no” choices. The moderator input for launching the digital interactive dialog window thus causes the UI element presenting the combination of pre-defined interaction options, i.e. causes the digital interactive dialog window, to be displayed in respective participant UIs of the virtual conference on the plurality of participant devices.);
receiving a plurality of responses from the plurality of participant devices, the plurality of responses being based on the combination of interaction options (see e.g. paragraphs 0212, 0213 and 0216-0221: Vazquez teaches that the system receives a plurality of responses from the plurality of participants, i.e. from the participants selecting interaction options in the digital interactive dialog window, wherein the plurality of responses are displayed to the participants and the moderator, and/or recorded in storage.);
receiving an end-triggering signal for ending the interactive session from the host device (see e.g. paragraphs 0215-0216 and 0223: Vazquez discloses that the collection of the participant input via the digital interactive dialog window can be stopped after a preset time selected by the moderator or in response to moderator selection of a field for stopping the collection. Such input by the moderator is considered an end-triggering signal for ending the interactive session from the host device.); and
deactivating the interactive component on the plurality of participant devices in response to receiving the end-triggering signal (see e.g. paragraphs 0215-0216 and 0223: as noted above, Vazquez discloses that the collection of the participant input via the digital interactive dialog window can be stopped after a preset time selected by the moderator or in response to moderator selection of a field for stopping the collection. The interactive component, i.e. the digital interactive dialog window, is thus deactivated in response to receiving the end-triggering signal, i.e. in response to receiving input from the moderator for selecting a preset time or to stop collection of the participant input.).
Vazquez thus teaches a method similar to that of claim 1. Vazquez further discloses that such teachings can be implemented via a processing device of a system that further comprises a memory component coupled to the processing device (see e.g. paragraphs 0228, 0229 and 0234). Such a system for implementing the above-described teachings of Vazquez is considered a system similar to that of claim 14. Vazquez further discloses that the above teachings also can be implemented via computer-executable instructions (i.e. a computer program) stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium for execution by a processing device (see e.g. paragraphs 0237 and 0246). Such a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions to implement the above-described teachings of Vazquez is considered a non-transitory computer-readable medium similar to that of claim 18. However, Vazquez does not explicitly disclose that the start-triggering signal is generated by activating a start-triggering key combination corresponding to the combination of pre-defined interaction options, and wherein the plurality of combinations of pre-defined interactions options (from which the combination of pre-defined interactions options is selected) are mapped to a plurality of start-triggering key combinations, as is required by claims 1, 14 and 18. Moreover, Vazquez does not explicitly teach causing the selected combination of pre-defined interaction options to be first displayed on the host device in response to receiving the start-triggering signal, wherein the host device is configured to edit and approve the combination of pre-defined interaction options to provide a combination of customized interaction options, and whereby the combination of interaction options presented via the UI element displayed in respective UIs on the plurality of participant devices is particularly this combination of customized interaction options, as is further required by claims 1, 14 and 18.
Nevertheless, enabling users to trigger application commands via a key combination instead of a user interface element is generally known in the art. Dong in particular discloses that a plurality of different application commands can be mapped to a respective plurality of key-combinations, whereby an application command can be executed via its corresponding key-combination instead of selecting its corresponding UI element (see e.g. paragraphs 0003, 0022 and 0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vazquez and Dong before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the interface taught by Vazquez such that the application command (i.e. the start-triggering signal) for selecting the type of digital interactive dialog window (and thus selecting its associated combination of pre-defined interaction options) can additionally or alternatively be made via a key-combination like taught by Dong. As Vazquez discloses a plurality of application commands mapped to a respective plurality of combinations of pre-defined interaction options (i.e. Vazquez discloses a plurality of menu items mapped to a respective plurality of types of digital interactive dialog windows, each corresponding to a particular combination of pre-defined interaction options – see e.g. paragraph 0214), it would have been obvious to particularly modify the interface taught by Vazquez such that a plurality of key-combinations like taught by Dong are mapped to the plurality of combinations of pre-defined interaction options. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such key-combinations, because they can enable the user to more efficiently select and execute an application command, as is suggested by Dong (see e.g. paragraph 0022). Accordingly, Vazquez and Dong are considered to teach receiving a start-triggering signal from a host device to start an interactive session, the start-triggering signal being generated by activating a start-triggering key combination corresponding to a combination of pre-defined interaction options (i.e. corresponding to a type of digital interactive dialog window), wherein the combination of pre-defined interaction options is selected from a plurality of combinations of pre-defined interaction options (i.e. a plurality of types of digital interactive dialog windows) mapped to a plurality of start-triggering key combinations, as is claimed. Vazquez and Dong, however, do not explicitly teach causing the selected combination of pre-defined interaction options to be first displayed on the host device in response to receiving the start-triggering signal, wherein the host device is configured to edit and approve the combination of pre-defined interaction options so as to provide a combination of customized interaction options, and whereby the combination of interaction options presented via the UI element displayed in respective UIs on the plurality of participant devices is particularly this combination of customized interaction options, as is further required by claims 1, 14 and 18.
Similar to Vazquez, which as noted above teaches enabling a user to select from a plurality of different types digital interactive dialog windows having pre-defined interaction options (e.g. having yes-no or multiple-choice options), Taghaddos describes a survey system that enables a user to select from a plurality of different question types having predefined interaction options to include in a survey (see e.g. paragraph 0040 and 0051). Taghaddos further teaches enabling a user to select from various pre-built surveys having different combinations of interaction options, a preview of which is displayed in response to user-selection thereof, and which can be used as is or edited to provide a combination of customized interaction options (see e.g. paragraphs 0042 and 0071, and FIG. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the interface taught by Vazquez and Dong so as to additionally or alternatively comprise pre-built questions that can either be used as is, or customized, like with the surveys taught by Taghaddos. That is, it would have been obvious to include, with the selectable types of digital interactive dialog windows (having combinations of pre-defined interaction options) taught by Vazquez, one or more pre-built questions (having combinations of pre-defined interaction options) like taught by Taghaddos, each mapped to start-triggering key combinations like taught by Dong, and whereby in response to selecting one of the pre-built questions (i.e. in response to receiving the associated start-triggering signal), a preview of the associated combination of pre-defined interaction options is displayed (i.e. on the host device) that enables the user to edit and approve the combination of pre-defined interaction options and thereby provide a combination of customized interaction options. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination, because this would enable the user to rapidly deploy particular types of questions, as is evident from Taghaddos (see e.g. paragraphs 0042 and 0071, and FIG. 8). Accordingly, Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 1, a system like that of claim 14, a non-transitory computer-readable medium like that of claim 18.
As per claim 3, Vazquez discloses that the start-triggering signal (i.e. the user input for selecting the digital interactive dialog window) can be generated based on a visual element in a host UI of the virtual conference on the host device being activated (i.e. based on selection of a type of digital interactive dialog window from within a menu displayed on the moderator’s device), wherein the visual element is preset to be associated with the combination of pre-defined interaction options (see e.g. paragraphs 0207 and 0214-0215, and FIG. 11). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos further teaches a method like that of claim 3.
As per claim 4, Vazquez further teaches that the plurality of responses are inputs from one or more input devices on the plurality of participant devices, the one or more input devices comprising a keyboard, mouse, touchscreen, camera, or microphone (see e.g. paragraphs 0207 and 0212, and FIG. 9: Vazquez discloses that the digital interactive dialog window comprises buttons or icons for selecting corresponding interaction options. Vazquez teaches that each participant selects such options via an input device such as a keyboard, mouse, touchscreen or microphone – see e.g. paragraphs 0129, 0145 and 0228). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos further teaches a method like that of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Vazquez teaches that the end-triggering signal can be generated based on a graphic element in a host user interface being activated (e.g. based on a selection of a preset time interval, or on a selection of a field for stopping collection of participant input) (see e.g. paragraphs 0215-0216). Vazquez however does not disclose or suggest that the end-triggering signal is generated based on a preset hotkey being pressed, as is required by claim 5. Nevertheless, like noted above, Dong discloses that a plurality of different application commands can be mapped to a respective plurality of key-combinations, whereby an application command can be executed via its corresponding key-combination instead of selecting its corresponding UI element (see e.g. paragraphs 0003, 0022 and 0037). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the interface taught by Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos such that the selection of a preset time interval and/or the selection of a field for stopping collection of participant input (i.e. the end-triggering signal) can be made via a key-combination (i.e. a preset hotkey being pressed) like taught by Dong. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a hotkey because it would enable the user to quickly select and execute application functionality, as is suggested by Dong (see e.g. paragraph 0022). Accordingly, Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos are considered to teach, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a method like that of claim 5.
As per claim 6, Vazquez discloses that the end-triggering signal can be generated based on a graphic element in a host UI of the virtual conference on the host device being activated (e.g. based on a selection of a preset time interval, or on a selection of a field for stopping collection of participant input), wherein the graphic element is preset to be associated with ending the interactive session (see e.g. paragraphs 0215-0216). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos further teaches a method like that of claim 6.
As per claim 9, Vazquez further teaches broadcasting an aggregated response of the plurality of responses to the plurality of participant devices (see e.g. paragraphs 0212-0213 and FIG. 10: Vazquez discloses that when the participants have provided their responses via the digital interactive dialog window, each participant can be displayed results indicating an aggregated number of participants that selected each interaction option.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos further teaches a method like that of claim 9.
As per claim 13, Vazquez teaches that the interactive session can be a poll session, wherein the combination of pre-defined interaction options is a combination of answer options (see e.g. paragraphs 0086, 0208 and 0217). As noted above, it would have been obvious to modify the interface taught by Vazquez so as to enable the host to edit and customize pre-defined interaction options like taught by Taghaddos. Accordingly, the above-described combination of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos further teaches a method like that of claim 13.
As per claim 15, Vazquez further teaches that the memory component is configured to store mapping data between multiple combinations of interaction options and multiple start-triggering components, wherein the multiple combinations of interaction options are displayed on a host UI of the virtual conference on the host device (see e.g. paragraphs 0069, 0207 and 0214, and FIG. 11: Vazquez discloses that a selection environment can be presented on the moderator’s device, wherein the selection environment comprises a menu having multiple selectable types of digital interactive dialog windows, each type comprising a combination of interaction options such as “yes” and “no” choices. Each of the multiple selectable types of digital interactive dialog windows presented via the menu on the moderator’s device is considered a start-triggering component that is mapped to a combination of interaction options. The menu of selectable types of digital interactive dialog windows is necessarily stored in memory, and thus the memory component stores mapping data between multiple combinations of interaction options and multiple start-triggering components, i.e. stores the menu, wherein the multiple combinations of interaction options are displayed on a host UI, i.e. on the moderator’s UI, of the virtual conference on the host device.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos further teaches a system like that of claim 15.
As per claim 17, Vazquez teaches that the multiple start-triggering components are multiple graphic elements on the host UI of the virtual conference on the host device, wherein the start-triggering signal is generated based on a graphic element mapped to the combination of pre-defined interaction options being activated (see e.g. paragraphs 0069, 0207 and 0214-0215, and FIG. 11: Vazquez teaches that the multiple-start triggering components are multiple graphic elements, i.e. are multiple menu options each corresponding to a type of digital interactive dialog window, wherein the graphic elements are displayed on the host UI of the virtual conference on the host device, i.e. on the moderator’s device, and wherein the start triggering signal is generated based on a graphic element mapped to the combination of pre-defined interaction options being activated, i.e. being selected.). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos further teaches a system like that of claim 17.
As per claim 19, Vazquez further discloses that the plurality of responses are inputs from one or more input devices on the plurality of participant devices comprising a keyboard, mouse, touchscreen, or microphone (see e.g. paragraphs 0207 and 0212, and FIG. 9: Vazquez discloses that the digital interactive dialog window comprises buttons or icons for selecting corresponding interaction options. Vazquez teaches that each participant selects such options via an input device such as a keyboard, mouse, touchscreen or microphone – see e.g. paragraphs 0129, 0145 and 0228). Accordingly, the above-described combination of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium like that of claim 19.
As per claim 21, it would have been obvious, as is described above, to modify the interface taught by Vazquez such that a plurality of key-combinations like taught by Dong are mapped to the plurality of combinations of pre-defined interaction options (i.e. types of digital interactive dialog windows). Dong particularly teaches enabling the user to update the mapping between key-combinations and corresponding application commands (see e.g. paragraphs 0006, 0023 and 0041). Accordingly, it follows that the mapping between the plurality of combinations of pre-defined interaction options and the plurality of start-triggering key combinations is updatable. The above-described combination of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos thus further teaches a method like that of claim 21.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos described above, and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0066511 to Burd et al. (“Burd”).
Regarding claim 7, Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos teach a method like that of claim 1, as is described above, which entails receiving a start-triggering signal from a host device to start an interactive session during a virtual conference, and generating an interactive component for the virtual conference that comprises a UI element presenting a combination of host-approved interaction options. Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos, however, do not further teach or suggest: (i) converting an audio signal received from the host device to a text message; (ii) determining an interaction topic for the interactive session from the text message during the interactive session; and (iii) causing the interaction topic to be displayed in the UI element presenting the combination of host-approved interaction options in respective participant UIs of the virtual conference on the plurality of participant devices, as is required by claim 7.
Burd generally describes a method and system for verbal polling during a conference call discussion (see e.g. paragraph 0005). Like claimed, Burd particularly teaches: (i) converting an audio signal (i.e. a verbally provided question) received from a host device to a text message (i.e. a textual form of the question); (ii) determining an interaction topic (i.e. the question) for an interactive session from the text message during the interactive session; and (iii) causing the interaction topic to be displayed in a UI element presenting a combination of host-approved interaction options (i.e. answer options) (see e.g. paragraphs 0005, 0016-0018, 0030-0031, 0036 and 0075, and FIG. 3H).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Burd before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the interface taught by Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos so as to enable the host to verbalize the interaction topic like taught by Burd, which as noted above entails: (i) converting an audio signal received from the host device to a text message; (ii) determining the interaction topic for the interactive session from the text message during the interactive session; and (iii) causing the interaction topic to be displayed in the UI element presenting the combination of host-approved interaction options in respective participant UIs of the virtual conference on the plurality of participant devices. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination, because it would enable the host to efficiently present the interaction topic (i.e. question) to a plurality of participants, as is evident from Burd (see e.g. paragraphs 0013-0014 and 0016-0019). Accordingly, Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Burd are considered to teach a method like that of claim 7.
As per claim 8, Vazquez discloses that a moderator can select and launch a type of “digital interactive dialog window” (i.e. an interactive component comprising a UI element like claimed) to be displayed on each of the participant devices (see e.g. paragraphs 0207, 0210, 0214 and 0215); the user input for selecting and/or launching the interactive dialog window is considered a start-triggering signal as is noted above. Vazquez further discloses that, in conjunction with selecting and launching the digital interactive dialog window, the moderator can pose a question (i.e. the interaction topic) to the participants via web content and/or audibly via a stream from the moderator’s device (see e.g. paragraphs 0208 and 0217-0222). As noted above, it would have been obvious to modify the interface taught by Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos so as to enable the host to verbalize the interaction topic like taught by Burd, wherein the verbalized interaction topic is converted to text and presented via the interactive component/UI element. Burd discloses that the interaction topic can be automatically detected (see e.g. paragraphs 0047 and 0052-0053). Accordingly, it is apparent that the host can verbalize the interaction topic while selecting and launching the digital interactive dialog window. In such circumstances, the audio signal can be received during a period from a first time point before receiving the start-triggering signal (i.e. before selecting or launching the digital interactive dialog window) to a second time point after receiving the start-triggering signal. Accordingly, the above-described combination of Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Burd is further considered to teach a method like that of claim 8.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos described above, and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0013158 to Zahavi et al. (“Zahavi”).
Regarding claim 10, Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos teach a method like that of claim 1, as is described above, which entails receiving a start-triggering signal from a host device during a virtual conference to start an interactive session, and generating an interactive component (i.e. a digital interactive dialog window) for the virtual conference that comprises a UI element presenting a combination of interaction options. Like in claim 10, Vazquez further teaches recording the virtual conference to create a recording file for the virtual conference, wherein the recording file comprises audio data for the virtual conference and interaction-related data for the interactive session (see e.g. paragraphs 0217-0222). Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos, however, do not explicitly teach inserting a timestamp for receipt of the start-triggering signal in the recording file, as is further required by claim 10.
Zahavi generally describes technologies to programmatically determine, from presentation or meeting-related content, an event of interest that is specific to a user, and to generate an enriched playback timeline that includes the event of interest (see e.g. paragraph 0003). The event of interest can correspond to, for example, a question being asked during the presentation or meeting (see e.g. paragraphs 0003 and 0020-0021). Regarding the claimed invention, Zahavi suggests creating a recording file for the presentation or meeting-related content, wherein a timestamp (e.g. a start time) of the initiation of each determined event of interest is inserted (see e.g. paragraphs 0017, 0062 and 0130-0131).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Zahavi before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos such that the provision of the digital interactive dialog window can be recorded as an event like taught by Zahavi, which entails inserting a first timestamp in the recording file for the initiation of the event (i.e. in this case, for the receipt of the start-triggering signal). It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination, because it would improve the ability for a user to efficiently watch or re-watch the conference recording, as is taught by Zahavi (see e.g. paragraph 0025). Accordingly, Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Zahavi are considered to teach a method like that of claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, Vazquez teaches that, in conjunction with the digital interactive dialog window, a corresponding question (i.e. interaction topic) is presented to the participants via web content and/or audibly via a stream from the moderator’s device, whereby the participants use the digital interactive dialog window to respond to the question (see e.g. paragraphs 0208 and 0217-0222). The participants’ responses to the questions are recorded and can be used to create a report (i.e. to show the participants’ aggregated responses) (see e.g. paragraphs 0213, 0216 and 0217-0222). Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos, however, do not explicitly teach: (i) after the virtual conference, extracting a segment of audio data from the recording file, wherein the segment of audio data is from one minute before the first timestamp to one minute after the first timestamp; (ii) converting the segment of audio data to a text; (iii) determining an interaction topic of the interactive session from the text; and (iv) creating a report using the interaction topic and the plurality of responses, as is required by claim 11.
Like noted above, Zahavi describes technologies to programmatically determine, from presentation or meeting-related content, an event of interest that is specific to a user, wherein the event of interest can correspond to, for example, a question being asked during the presentation or meeting (see e.g. paragraphs 0003 and 0020-0021). Regarding the claimed invention, Zahavi generally teaches determining a question being asked based on an indicated time point in the meeting at which the question was asked, wherein the question is determined from text data derived from audio data that occurs during a period of time before and/or after the indicated time point (see e.g. paragraph 0075). Zahavi suggests that such information can be used to create a report (e.g. a summary of the event that is presented in a pop-up window) (see e.g. paragraph 0116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Zahavi before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method taught by Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Zahavi so as to determine the question that is asked (i.e. the interaction topic) like taught by Zahavi such that the report includes the question. That is, it would have been obvious to further modify the method taught by Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Zahavi to as to: (i) extract (e.g. after the virtual conference) a segment of audio data from the recording file, wherein the segment of audio data includes a period of time occurring before (e.g. one minute before) and after (e.g. one minute after) an indicated time point of the question (i.e. before and after the first timestamp); (ii) convert the segment of audio data to a text; (iii) determine the question (i.e. the interaction topic) of the interactive session from the text; and (iv) create the report also using the interaction topic (i.e. in addition to the plurality of responses), like suggested by Zahavi. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would provide useful information to the user in reviewing the meeting or conference, as is evident from Zahavi (see e.g. paragraphs 0075 and 0116). Accordingly, Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Zahavi are further considered to teach a method like that of claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Zahavi, which is described above, and also over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0188125 to Kaplan et al. (“Kaplan”).
Regarding claim 12, Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Zahavi teach a method like that of claim 10, as is described above, which entails generating an interactive component (i.e. a digital interactive dialog window) for a virtual conference that comprises a UI element presenting a combination of host-approved interaction options, and recording the virtual conference to create a recording file that comprises audio data for the virtual conference and interaction-related data. Like in claim 11, Zahavi further suggests causing a recording file for a virtual conference to be replayed on a participant device (see e.g. paragraphs 0062, 0085, 0107-0110 and 0114). Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Zahavi, however, do not explicitly teach that replaying the recording file comprises: (i) causing the UI element presenting the combination of host-approved interaction options to be displayed on the participant device; (ii) receiving a response from the participant device based on the combination of host-approved interaction options; and (iii) modifying the recording file to include the response in an updated recording file, as is further required by claim 12.
Similar to Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Zahavi, Kaplan teaches generating an interactive component (e.g. a poll) for a virtual conference that comprises a UI element presenting a combination of host-approved interaction options, and recording the virtual conference to create a recording file that comprises audio data for the virtual conference (see e.g. paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0023, 0090, 0115 and 0183, and FIG. 20). Regarding claim 12, Kaplan further suggests: (i) causing the recording file for the virtual conference to be replayed on a participant device; (ii) causing the UI element presenting the combination of host-approved interaction options to be displayed on the participant device; (iii) receiving a response from the participant device based on the combination of host-approved interaction options; and (iv) modifying the recording file to include the response in an updated recording file (see e.g. paragraphs 0023 and 0086-0087).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos, Zahavi and Kaplan before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Zahavi such that replaying the recording file further comprises: (i) causing the UI element presenting the combination of host-approved interaction options to be displayed on the participant device; (ii) receiving a response from the participant device based on the combination of host-approved interaction options; and (iii) modifying the recording file to include the response in an updated recording file, as is taught by Kaplan. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable a user to participate in a conference poll even if he or she initially misses the conference, as is evident from Kaplan (see e.g. paragraphs 0023 and 0086-0087). Accordingly, Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos, Zahavi and Kaplan are considered to teach a method like that of claim 12.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos described above, and also over the U.S. Patent Application Publication Kaplan cited above.
Regarding claim 20, Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium like that of claim 18, as is described above, which comprises executable instructions to cause a processing device to generate an interactive component (i.e. a digital interactive dialog window) for an interactive session during a virtual conference based on a combination of host-approved interaction options. Like in claim 20, Vazquez further teaches recording the virtual conference to create a recording file for the virtual conference, wherein the recording file comprises audio data for the virtual conference and interaction-related data for the interactive session (see e.g. paragraphs 0217-0222). Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos however do not explicitly teach: (i) causing the recording file for the virtual conference to be replayed on a participant device after the virtual conference; (ii) causing the combination of customized interaction options to be displayed on the participant device; (iii) receiving a response from the participant device based on the combination of customized interaction options; and (iv) modifying the recording file to include the response in an updated recording file, as is further required by claim 20.
Similar to Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos, Kaplan teaches generating an interactive component (e.g. a poll) for an interactive session of a virtual conference based on a combination of interaction options, and recording the virtual conference to create a recording file that comprises audio data for the virtual conference (see e.g. paragraphs 0011, 0013, 0023, 0090, 0115 and 0183, and FIG. 20). Regarding claim 20, Kaplan further suggests: (i) causing the recording file for the virtual conference to be replayed on a participant device after the virtual conference; (ii) causing the combination of interaction options to be displayed on the participant device; (iii) receiving a response from the participant device based on the combination of interaction options; and (iv) modifying the recording file to include the response in an updated recording file (see e.g. paragraphs 0023 and 0086-0087).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Kaplan before him prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the non-transitory computer-readable medium taught by Vazquez, Dong and Taghaddos so as to include executable instructions for: (i) causing the recording file for the virtual conference to be replayed on a participant device after the virtual conference; (ii) causing the combination of interaction options (i.e. the customized interaction options) to be displayed on the participant device; (iii) receiving a response from the participant device based on the combination of interaction options; and (iv) modifying the recording file to include the response in an updated recording file, as is taught by Kaplan. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such a combination because it would enable a user to participate in a conference poll even if he or she initially misses the conference, as is evident from Kaplan (see e.g. paragraphs 0023 and 0086-0087). Accordingly, Vazquez, Dong, Taghaddos and Kaplan are considered to teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium like that of claim 20.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 7, 12-14, 18 and 20. In response to the Applicant’s arguments, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections presented in the previous Office Action are respectfully withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, the Applicant argues that the application commands in Dong are not equivalent to the pre-defined interaction options in claim 1.
In response, the Examiner respectfully submits that the combination of Vazquez and Dong nevertheless teaches the predefined interaction options like in claim 1. In particular, like noted above, Vazquez teaches displaying selectable menu of different types digital interactive dialog windows that can be deployed on end-user devices, wherein a plurality of the selectable types of digital interaction dialog windows comprise different combinations of interaction options such as “yes” and “no” answer choices and different multiple-choice options – see e.g. paragraph 0214 and FIG. 11. That is, a first selectable menu option can correspond to a first combination of pre-defined interaction option (e.g. “yes” and “no” answer choices) and a second selectable menu option corresponds to a second combination of pre-defined interaction option (e.g. multiple-choice options). The user can understandably select the menu options via a mouse.
Dong however teaches enabling a user to alternatively or additionally select menu options by using different start-triggering key combinations mapped to the respective menu options (see e.g. paragraphs 0003, 0022 and 0037).
Like noted above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Vazquez and Dong before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the interface taught by Vazquez such that the menu command for selecting the type of digital interactive dialog window (and thus selecting its associated combination of pre-defined interaction options) can additionally or alternatively be made via a key-combination like taught by Dong. It would have been advantageous to one of ordinary skill to utilize such key-combinations, because they can enable the user to more efficiently select and execute an application command, as is suggested by Dong (see e.g. paragraph 0022). The Examiner thus respectfully maintains that the combination of Vazquez and Dong teaches a starting-triggering key combination corresponding to a combination of pre-defined interaction options (i.e. to a menu item for selecting an interactive dialog window having the combination of pre-defined interaction options), wherein the combination of pre-defined interaction options is selected from a plurality of (i.e. a menu of) a plurality of combinations of pre-defined interaction options mapped to a plurality of start-triggering key combinations, as is required by claim 1.
The Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections (i.e. that Fisher fails to teach interaction options which are edited and customized for participant devices to select) have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above, which are required in response to the Applicant’s amendments.
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 BLAINE T BASOM whose telephone number is (571)272-4044. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:30 pm, EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matt Ell can be reached at (571)270-3264. 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.
/BTB/
6/1/2026
/MATTHEW ELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2141
Prosecution Insights