DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The following is a FINAL OFFICE ACTION in response to applicant’s amendments to and response for Application #18/122,260, filed on 07/31/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-23 are now pending and have been examined.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 have been cancelled by the applicant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasaba, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0150287 A1 in view of Libin, Patent No. 11,677,575 B1 and in further view of Burns, et al., Patent No. 12,462,494 B2 and in further view of Krol, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0360742 A1.
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Kasaba teaches:
A computer-implemented method (system) (computer program product) for automatically generating and displaying real-time virtual feedback to a presenter in a virtual environment corresponding to a user experience associated with a target audience in the virtual environment, comprising:
in response to initiating and detecting a virtual event, automatically identifying one or more participants in the virtual environment associated with the virtual event, wherein identifying the one or more participants further comprises identifying the presenter and the target audience (see [0038], [0047], [0049], [0064]-[0068], and [0111] in which a virtual online event such as a presentation is initiated, a presenter is identified by stored profile data and target audience members that join the presentation are also identified by the system by their stored profile or other means) wherein the virtual environment is a three-dimensional environment and wherein the presenter and each of the one or more participants of the target audience are represented by a respective avatar (see [0061], [0150], [0154] in which the avatars can be presented in a 3-D presentation and in which the users can engage with other avatars, such as the presenter with the users, such as with the use of VR or AR headsets)
automatically detecting and tracking one or more user actions and user reactions associated with each of the one or more participants in the virtual event to identify real-time participant feedback associated with each of the one or more participants based on the virtual event (see [0074], [0081], [0083], [0087], [0114], [0117], [0126], [0129]-[0133], and [0136] in which detecting and tracking of user reactions and feedback in real-time to the various portions of the presentation are collected in various ways for each of the participants) wherein identifying the real-time participant feedback further comprises determining a correlation between the real-time participant feedback associated with the one or more participants of the target audience with the real-time participant feedback associated with the presenter, wherein automatically detecting and tracking the one or more user actions and the user reactions comprises automatically detecting and tracking the one or more user actions and the user reactions associated with each of the one or more participants based on movements and communications detected using a computer of each of the one or more participants (see [0125] and [0130]-[0131] in which the participant feedback is correlated with portions of the presentation or actions of the presenter such as by timestamps or other means in order to correlate the real-time reactions of the audience to the presenter and presentation; see especially [0129] in which the feedback includes not only communications but also movements of the participant relative to the presenter’s presentation)
automatically generating and displaying to the presenter a real-time assessment of the virtual event based on the determined correlation and the real-time participant feedback associated with the target audience (see Figures 18 and 19, [0137]-[0143], and [0147] in which a real-time assessment of the virtual event is displayed with real-time audience feedback) wherein the real-time assessment further includes generating and displaying on the virtual environment visual prompts representing scaled user reactions from the target audience (see Figures 18 and 19, [0137]-[0143], and [0147] in which the visual prompts show scaled user reaction, such as the degree of different emotions or reactions to various portions of the presentation; the examiner notes that such as [0142]-[0143] and [0147] display the visual prompts live in real-time to the presenter during the presentation)
Kasaba, however, does not appear to specify:
generating and displaying suggestions for improving the scaled user reactions
Libin teaches:
generating and displaying suggestions for improving the scaled user reactions (see Column 6, lines 10-20 and Column 10, lines 25-33 and 52-61 in which during the presentation the presenter is displayed suggestions for improving the current scaled audience engagement analytics of the presentation by prompts such as “Don’t slouch,” “turn more often to the audience,” speaking louder, spending more time on content, and other such suggestions )
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Libin with Kasaba because Kasaba already teaches displaying the real-time metrics for audience reactions, and displaying improvement suggestions would serve the presenter in less need to think on their feet while presenting and being able to easily incorporate the suggestions while they are presenting as they are displayed.
Kasaba and Libin, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein the presenter and each of the one or more participants of the target audience are represented by a respective avatar located at a respective position within the virtual environment
based on movements and communications detected using the respective avatars of each of the one or more participants
Burns teaches:
wherein the presenter and each of the one or more participants of the target audience are represented by a respective avatar located at a respective position within the virtual environment (see Column 7, lines 23-47, Column 11, lines 26-35, and Column 34, lines 18-24 in which movements of the avatars in the virtual environment are tracked during a virtual presentation and see also Column 18, line 38-Column 20, line 65 in which movements including such as facial expressions and other movements are used to correlate the movements with live presentation feedback)
based on movements and communications detected using the respective avatars of each of the one or more participants (see at least Column 1, lines 52-63 and Column 9, line 45-Column 10, line 41)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Libin with Kasaba and Libin because Kasaba already teaches displaying the real-time metrics for audience reactions associated with an avatar-based presentation that also includes avatar-to-avatar interaction, and a 3-D virtual environment in which the entire presentation is in a virtual space in which each avatar has a position in the space and in which movements of the avatar in the space are detected would allow for the presentation environment to be entirely virtual while still maintain the ability to fully track and gauge audience response and give presentation feedback.
Kasaba, Libin, and Burns, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein determining the correlation comprises measuring, at a computing device of a first participant of the target audience, a first level of sound received at the computing device from the avatar of the presenter and correlating the measured first level of the sound with the respective position of the avatar of the first participant relative to the recorded position of the avatar of the presenter within the virtual environment
Krol teaches:
wherein determining the correlation comprises measuring, at a computing device of a first participant of the target audience, a first level of sound received at the computing device from the avatar of the presenter and correlating the measured first level of the sound with the respective position of the avatar of the first participant relative to the recorded position of the avatar of the presenter within the virtual environment (see at least Abstract, [0012], [0093], and [0125]-[0129])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Krol with Kasaba, Libin, and Burns because Kasaba, Libin, and Burns already teach displaying the real-time metrics for audience reactions associated with an avatar-based presentation in a 3-D virtual environment in which the entire presentation is in a virtual space, and determining sound levels of the presentation relative to each avatar would allow for ensuring proper audience ability to hear and engage in an environment where even the users associated with the avatar themselves may not be aware that they are not hearing something or the sound level is not appropriate due to the virtual nature of the presentation and environment.
Regarding Claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Kasaba, Libin, Burns, and Krol teaches:
the computer-implemented method of claim 1…
Kasaba further teaches:
wherein automatically identifying the one or more participants in the virtual environment further comprises automatically detecting and accessing user profile data associated with the participants (see [0052] and [0068]-[0070])
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of Kasaba, Libin, Burns, and Krol teaches:
the computer-implemented method of claim 1…
Kasaba further teaches:
detecting and tracking the one or more user actions and the user reactions differently for the one or more participants based on whether a participant is the presenter or the target audience (see [0074]-[0075], [0081]-[0083], [0090]-[0091], [0096], [0111], [0114], [0117], [0126], [0129], and [0131]-[0136]; the examiner notes that the claim as written is extremely broad as “differently” could mean anything from just tracking different persons to different components doing the tracking to many other options, and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation is taken in the examination of the claim to include nay two entities tracked separately)
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasaba, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0150287 A1 in view of Libin, Patent No. 11,677,575 B1 and in further view of Burns, et al., Patent No. 12,462,494 B2 and in further view of Krol, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0360742 A1 and in further view of Rampton, Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0228358 A1.
Regarding Claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Kasaba, Libin, Burns, and Krol teaches:
the computer-implemented method of claim 1…
Kasaba, Libin, Burns, and Krol, however, does not appear to specify:
wherein automatically identifying the one or more participants in the virtual environment further comprises automatically identifying whether the participants in the virtual environment are key audience members
Rampton teaches:
wherein automatically identifying the one or more participants in the virtual environment further comprises automatically identifying whether the participants in the virtual environment are key audience members (see [0013], [0032], and [0055]-[0056] in which key participants in a virtual meeting are identified for determining everything from schedule to preferred topics and items)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Rampton with Kasaba, Libin, Burns, and Krol because Kasaba already teaches a virtual event with a presenter and displaying the real-time metrics for audience reactions, and the system knowing the key participants could prioritize what the reactions and profiles of the key participants are, allowing for better feedback regarding reactions and any suggestions for improvement.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasaba, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0150287 A1 in view of Libin, Patent No. 11,677,575 B1 and in further view of Burns, et al., Patent No. 12,462,494 B2 and in further view of Krol, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0360742 A1 and in further view of Heins, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0349212 A1.
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20, the combination of Kasaba, Libin, Burns, and Krol teaches:
the computer-implemented method of claim 1…
Kasaba, Libin, Burns, and Krol, however, does not appear to specify:
automatically generating and displaying the real-time assessment by generating the visual prompts including graphical user interface (GUI) icons for displaying and overlaying on the virtual environment and over the one or more participants of the target audience
Heins teaches:
automatically generating and displaying the real-time assessment by generating the visual prompts including graphical user interface (GUI) icons for displaying and overlaying on the virtual environment and over the one or more participants of the target audience (see Figure 4 and [0095]-[0097] in which a dialogue box or pop up graphic overlaid on the presentation gives the presenter real time prompts of feedback and suggestions for improving the audience response)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Heins with Kasaba, Libin, Burns, and Krol because Kasaba already teaches displaying the real-time metrics for audience reactions, and Libin teaches displaying improvement suggestions, and using an overlay or prompt type delivery would allow the presenter to easily notice the suggestions while still being able to focus on their presentation notes and interface.
**The examiner notes that Burns and Krol teach similar type interface overlays to give live prompts for presentation feedback, but in order to preserve the finality of this office action the rejection was not changed.**
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasaba, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0150287 A1 in view of Libin, Patent No. 11,677,575 B1 and in further view of Burns, et al., Patent No. 12,462,494 B2 and in further view of Krol, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0360742 A1 and in further view of Heins, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0349212 A1 and in further view of Hirasawa, et al., Pre-Grant Publication No. 2025/0118105 A1.
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, the combination of Kasaba, Libin, Burns, Krol, and Heins teaches:
the computer-implemented method of claim 6…
Kasaba, Libin, Burns, Krol, and Heins, however, does not appear to specify:
automatically using and integrating a heat map with the GUI icons, and automatically adjusting a color associated with the GUI icons based on a range of colors of the heat map corresponding to the user experience associated with the target audience
Hirasawa teaches:
automatically using and integrating a heat map with the GUI icons, and automatically adjusting a color associated with the GUI icons based on a range of colors of the heat map corresponding to the user experience associated with the target audience (see Figures 2-4 and [0047]-[0054], and [0089]-[0091] in which the level of reaction id displayed as different colors/hues, with the higher reactions having brighter/warmer colors; the examiner notes that while the reference does not use the words “heat map,” the reference clearly uses different and brighter colors for greater or more noticeable reactions from the audience)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Hirasawa with Kasaba, Libin, Burns, Krol, and Heins because Kasaba already teaches displaying the real-time metrics for audience reactions, and Libin teaches displaying improvement suggestions, and Heins teaches using an overlay or prompt type delivery to allow the presenter to easily notice the suggestions while still being able to focus on their presentation notes and interface, and using a heat map allows for a quickly recognizable display using colors and hues, and allows the presenter to gage the intensity of the reaction without having to read a lot on the screen.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 101:
The applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the 101 rejection and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 102:
The 102 rejection was given in error, was directed to a different set of claims, and has now been removed.
Regarding the rejections based on 35 USC 103:
The applicant’s arguments have been considered in light of the amendments to the claims but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant amendment(s) necessitated the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action. Therefore, 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Luis A. Brown whose telephone number is 571.270.1394. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-4:30pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at 571.270.3445.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/LUIS A BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights