CTFR 18/126,518 CTFR 87744 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Amendment The amendments, filed 3/19/2026, have been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 18 have been amended. Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 14, 19 and 20 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 13, and 15-18 are pending. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed on 3/19/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. Wallbaum in view of Vashisht 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 8-10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallbaum et al.(USPubN 2017/0264447; hereinafter Wallbaum) in view of Vashisht(USPubN 2023/0269287) . As per claim 1, Wallbaum teaches a computer-implemented method for interacting with a recording of a web-based meeting, the method comprising(“requesting an inquiry reply during a synchronous remote meeting” in Abs, “The UI 700 may be configured for review of the inquiry and playback of the associated recordings on a computing device (e.g., a laptop, desktop, or terminal) through a web-based portal” in Para.[0080]): in response to a playback by a user of the recording of the web-based meeting, comprising at least one of an audio portion or a video portion, recording an interaction of the user including at least one of asking a question or answering a question during the playback to create a recorded interaction, wherein the user did not attend the web-based meeting, and wherein natural language processing of the recording of the web-based meeting identifies a name of the user, a request for additional information from the user, and a time point in the recording of the web-based meeting indicating when the request was made(“recording a synchronous meeting between remote users to generate a meeting recording, generating an inquiry during the synchronous meeting to create a generated inquiry, identifying a portion of the meeting recording relevant to the inquiry during the synchronous meeting, and transmitting the generated inquiry and the captured portion of the recording to a recipient user” in Abs, “collaborators attending remote synchronous meetings to generate an inquiry and to identify portions of a recording of the remote synchronous meeting relevant to the inquiry, may allow the inquiry to be sent to the absent collaborator with copies or links to the relevant portions of the recordings. Further, providing the missing collaborator with an option to respond with a recording may allow the reply recording to be incorporated, inserted, appended, or linked to the recording of the meeting for later viewing” in Para.[0022], “Collaborators A 106 and F 108 may also generate an inquiry asking Collaborator L 107 (who is not in the meeting) a question, or assigning Collaborator L 107 a project, and send the inquiry to Collaborator L 107. When generating the inquiry, Collaborators A 106 and F 108 may identify portions, or links to portions, of a recording of the current meeting (e.g., Meeting 2a 103), which provide context to the inquiry. Once the inquiry has been generated, the inquiry and the identified recording portions, or links to portions of the recording, are sent to Collaborator L 107” in Para.[0026], Collaborator L can be interpreted as a name of the user. The inquiry to Collaborator can be interpreted as a request for additional information from the user. The identified recording portion or links to portions of the recording can be interpreted as a time point of the recording of the web-based meeting where the request was made.); wherein the natural language processing model also searches a contact list comprising contact information and preferences of a target audience of users to identifity a predetermined method of communication associated with the user, and automatically sends the request for additional information and the time point to the user via the predetermined method of communication associated with the user(“The computation of the sum of attendance time of each attending collaborator may be used to produce an ordered list of descending attendance time of other previous attendees. This ordered list could be used to suggest one or more proposed recipient collaborators at 415 for receiving the inquiry being generated” in Para.[0064], “people at the head of the list might be considered the best candidates for receiving an inquiry. Attendance in earlier meetings related to the current meeting may be included in the calculation to make sure that those earlier meeting attendees will be included in the list. Attendees of the current meeting may be omitted in some example implementations because an inquiry might not be sent to a collaborator present at the current meeting. However, in some example implementations, a currently attending collaborator may want to send an inquiry to himself or herself with notes to follow-up on an issue after the meeting” in Para.[0065], Para.[0032]); combining the recorded interaction with a predetermined portion of the recording of the web-based meeting as a memory aid to the user to create an augmented recording, wherein the predetermined portion corresponds to the time point(“After reviewing the forwarded inquiry, collaborator L 107 can send a reply back to the remote meeting system 200 at 230. In some example implementations, collaborator L 107 may use the remote meeting system 200 to record a reply to the inquiry.” in Para.[0034], “Once the system 200 receives the reply, the reply may be incorporated at 235 into the recordings from 210 to form a contiguous recording that permits the inquiry and the reply to be reviewed together (e.g., simultaneously, or sequentially based on a user preference).” in Para.[0035]); storing the augmented recording in a repository as a single playback subset to form an artifact(“Once the system 200 receives the reply, the reply may be incorporated at 235 into the recordings from 210 to form a contiguous recording that permits the inquiry and the reply to be reviewed together (e.g., simultaneously, or sequentially based on a user preference).” in Para.[0035]); and sending a link to the artifact to users who attended the web-based meeting and to a target audience of users using a predetermined method of communication associated with each respective user(“the system 200 may also send a notification at 240 to Collaborators A 106 and F 108 to inform them that the reply has been received and incorporated into the recordings” in Para.[0036]). Wallbaum is silent about a natural language processing model generates a transcript from the recording of the web-based meeting and analyze the transcript. Vashisht teaches a natural language processing model generates a transcript from the recording of the web-based meeting and analyze the transcript(“FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of an example online meeting environment 100 in which an embodiment presented herein may be implemented. Environment 100 includes multiple computer devices 102 (collectively referred to as computer devices, participant devices, or platforms) operated by local users/participants, a meeting supervisor or server (also referred to as a “conference controller”) 104 configured to support online (e.g., web-based or over-a-network) collaborative meetings between the computer devices, and a communication network 106 communicatively coupled to the computer devices and the meeting supervisor. Computer devices 102 can take on a variety of forms, including a smartphone, tablet, laptop computer, desktop computer, video conference endpoint, and the like“ in Para.[0016], “Automatic speech recognition (ASR)/natural language processing (NLP) module 244 may employ any conventional or other speech to text mechanisms (e.g., speech-to-text applications, etc.) to generate a transcript or textual representation of the conversation. The transcript may be analyzed to determine a scenario representing an interruption. ASR/NLP module 244 may further employ any conventional or other natural language processing mechanisms (e.g., entity extraction, relationship extraction, sentiment/emotion analysis, keyword extraction, part-of-speech (POS) tagger, etc.) to analyze the transcript of the conversation. For example, the interruption may be identified based on natural language processing (NLP) of the transcript to identify sentiment, emotion, specific words, or other aspects of the conversation. By way of example, specific words or phrases pertaining to a later response or unavailability of user 210 may indicate an interruption (e.g., “Let me get back to you . . . ”, etc.). Further, the conversation may include sentiment or emotion indicating an interruption (e.g., the NLP may determine a score for emotion, sentiment and other attributes and indicate an interruption based on the score exceeding a score threshold, etc.)” in Para.[0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Wallbaum with the above teachings of Vashisht in order to improve computing performance with less resource. As per claim 2, Wallbaum and Vashisht teach all of limitation of claim 1. Wallbaum teaches further comprising: in response to receiving input from at least one of the target audience of users having used the link to the artifact, determining whether to update the augmented recording in the repository; in response to a determination to update the augmented recording in the repository, using the input received to create another single playback subset to form a second artifact; sending a link to the second artifact to the target audience of users using the predetermined method of communication associated with each respective user; and in response to a determination to not update the augmented recording in the repository, sending the input from the at least one of the target audience of users having used the link to the artifact directly to an author of the interaction(“Collaborator L 107 can review the inquiry and the associated portions of the recordings at 225. In some example implementations, collaborator L 107 may use links attached to the inquiry to stream the portions of the recordings associated with the inquiry. The portions of recordings may be streamed by a backend platform associated with the system. In other example implementations, collaborator L 107 may download the portions of the recording to his or her device for review” in Para.[0033], “After reviewing the forwarded inquiry, collaborator L 107 can send a reply back to the remote meeting system 200 at 230. In some example implementations, collaborator L 107 may use the remote meeting system 200 to record a reply to the inquiry. In other example implementations, the reply may be a text based reply sent directly to the collaborator generating the inquiry. The text reply may include an email, SMS message, or any other type of communication that may be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The replying by an absent collaborator (e.g., collaborator L 107) is discussed in greater detail below with respect to FIG. 3.” in Para.[0034], “Once the system 200 receives the reply, the reply may be incorporated at 235 into the recordings from 210 to form a contiguous recording that permits the inquiry and the reply to be reviewed together (e.g., simultaneously, or sequentially based on a user preference). The incorporation of the reply at 230 is discussed in greater detail below with respect to FIG. 3.” in Para.[0035], “the system 200 may also send a notification at 240 to Collaborators A 106 and F 108 to inform them that the reply has been received and incorporated into the recordings. For example, the system 200 may send an email, an SMS message, an App-based notification, or any other type of notification that may be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In other example implementations, no notification may be sent by the system 200. If the reply is received before the end of the meeting where the inquiry was generated, the meeting UI may alert the meeting participants and make the reply available for viewing” in Para.[0036]). As per claim 3, Wallbaum and Vashisht teach all of limitation of claim 1. Wallbaum teaches wherein the predetermined method of communication associated with each respective user is chosen from a group of communication types consisting of: direct messaging, email, text messaging, voicemail, and automated calling(“A inquiry transmitting unit of the system 200 may then forward the inquiry (and the associated recordings) to Collaborator L 107, or may place the inquiry in a queue for review by Collaborator L 107 at 215. Optionally, in some example implementations, the system 200 may automatically create and send a notification at 220 to make collaborator 107 aware of the assignment of the new inquiry. For example, the system 200 may send an email, a Short Message Service (SMS) message, a mobile application (App) based notification or any other type of notification that may be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In other example implementations, no notification may be sent to Collaborator L 107, other than the forwarded inquiry being placed in Collaborator L's 107 queue” in Para.[0032]). As per claim 8, Wallbaum teaches a system for interacting with a recording of a web-based meeting comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable storage medium communicatively coupled to the processor and storing program instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising(“Computing device 1005 in computing environment 1000 can include one or more processing units, cores, or processors 1010, memory 1015 (e.g., RAM, ROM, and/or the like), internal storage 1020 (e.g., magnetic, optical, solid state storage, and/or organic), and/or I/O interface 1025, any of which can be coupled on a communication mechanism or bus 1030 for communicating information or embedded in the computing device 1005” in Para.[0090]): the other limitations in the claim 8 has been discussed in the rejection claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 9, the limitations in the claim 9 has been discussed in the rejection claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 10, the limitations in the claim 10 has been discussed in the rejection claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 15, Wallbaum teaches a computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therein, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform a method comprising(“Computing device 1005 can be used to implement techniques, methods, applications, processes, or computer-executable instructions in some example computing environments. Computer-executable instructions can be retrieved from transitory media, and stored on and retrieved from non-transitory media. The executable instructions can originate from one or more of any programming, scripting, and machine languages (e.g., C, C++, C#, Java, Visual Basic, Python, Perl, JavaScript, and others)” in Para.[0096]) and the other limitations in the claim 15 has been discussed in the rejection claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 16, the limitations in the claim 16 has been discussed in the rejection claim 2 and rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 17, the limitations in the claim 17 has been discussed in the rejection claim 3 and rejected under the same rationale. Wallbaum in view of Vashisht and Gura 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallbaum et al.(USPubN 2017/0264447; hereinafter Wallbaum) in view of Vashisht(USPubN 2023/0269287) further in view of Gura(USPubN 2024/0303030) . As per claim 6, Wallbaum and Vashisht teach all of limitation of claim 4. Wallbaum and Vashisht are silent about comprising: training the natural language processing model to detect a plurality of interaction requests from a recording corpus of training data. Gura teaches further comprising: training the natural language processing model to detect a plurality of interaction requests from a recording corpus of training data(“analyzing content accessed by the target user and/or content generated by the target user, for example, using natural language processing (NLP) techniques that identify key words indicating user interests.” in Para.[0090], Para.[0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Wallbaum and Vashisht with the above teachings of Gura in order to improve user experience. As per claim 13, the limitations in the claim 13 has been discussed in the rejection claim 6 and rejected under the same rationale. As per claim 18, the limitations in the claim 18 has been discussed in the rejection claim 6 and rejected under the same rationale. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 SUNGHYOUN PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1333. The examiner can normally be reached M - Thur 6:00 am - 4 pm. 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, THAI Q TRAN can be reached at (571)272-7382. 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. /SUNGHYOUN PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2484 Application/Control Number: 18/126,518 Page 2 Art Unit: 2484 Application/Control Number: 18/126,518 Page 3 Art Unit: 2484 Application/Control Number: 18/126,518 Page 4 Art Unit: 2484 Application/Control Number: 18/126,518 Page 5 Art Unit: 2484 Application/Control Number: 18/126,518 Page 6 Art Unit: 2484 Application/Control Number: 18/126,518 Page 7 Art Unit: 2484 Application/Control Number: 18/126,518 Page 8 Art Unit: 2484 Application/Control Number: 18/126,518 Page 9 Art Unit: 2484 Application/Control Number: 18/126,518 Page 10 Art Unit: 2484 Application/Control Number: 18/126,518 Page 11 Art Unit: 2484 Application/Control Number: 18/126,518 Page 12 Art Unit: 2484
Prosecution Insights