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 AIA .
Status of Claims
This communication is a Final Office action in response to communications received on 04/15/2026. Claims 1-5, 7, 12-17 have been amended. Claims 6 and 8-11 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7, 12-17 are currently pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1, 16 and 17 to overcome the 112(a) rejections. Therefore, Examiner withdraws the 112(a) rejections.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informality: Claim 13, line 3 recites “acquire use meeting” and it should be – acquire user meeting --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without a practical application and significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (i.e., Step 1). In the instant case, claims 1-5, 7, 12-15 are directed to a system (i.e. a machine). Claim 16 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory recording medium (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, each of these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas
Claims 1-5, 7, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Representative independent claim 1, analogous to independent claims 16 and 17 recites: acquire, user meeting information indicating a state of a corresponding one of the plurality of users in a meeting in which the plurality of users participate, the user meeting information including either acquired during the meeting; acquire work information related to a history of work-related activities of the plurality of users; calculate a relationship index indicating a relationship acquired user meeting information and the acquired work information; and store the relationship index; calculate, for at least one feature value of the user meeting information and the work information, feature value influence information indicating a degree of influence of the feature value on calculation of the relationship index; generate relationship improvement plan information including a method for improving a feature value having a negative influence on the relationship index, based on the calculated feature value influence information; present the relationship improvement pladetermine in during the meeting whether an improvement according to the relationship improvement plan information is being made by calculating the feature value having the negative influence based on the user meeting information; and in response to determining that the improvement is not being made, output information indicating that the improvement is not being made in during the meeting. The limitations as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls under at least the abstract groupings of:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). As the claims discuss acquiring user meeting information indicating a state of a corresponding one of the plurality of users in a meeting in which the plurality of users participate, acquiring work information related to a history of work-related activities of the plurality of users, calculating a relationship, the relationship index reflecting emotional states, the index indicating a relationship between the plurality of users based on the acquired user meeting information and the acquired work information, and generate relationship improvement plan information, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion (claim 1 recites for example, “acquire, user meeting information indicating a state of a corresponding one of the plurality of users in a meeting in which the plurality of users participate, the user meeting information including either acquired during the meeting”; “acquire work information related to a history of work-related activities of the plurality of users”; “calculate a relationship index indicating a relationship”; “acquired user meeting information and the acquired work information”; “calculate, for at least one feature value of the user meeting information and the work information, feature value influence information indicating a degree of influence of the feature value on calculation of the relationship index”; “generate relationship improvement plan information”; “present the relationship improvement pladetermine in during the meeting whether an improvement according to the relationship improvement plan information is being made by calculating the feature value having the negative influence based on the user meeting information”.) Concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of acquiring, calculating, generating, analyzing, determining and presenting data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLCPatentLitig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Dependent claims 2-5, 7, 12-15 add additional limitations, for example: (claim 2), wherein the user meeting information further includes physiological information of the plurality of users; (claim 3) divide the meeting into a plurality of segments, and the relationship improvement plan information includes either a value of the relationship index for each of the plurality of segments, graphical information representing the value, or both the value and the graphical information; (claim 4) divide the meeting into a plurality of segments, and the relationship improvement plan information includes information representing a time-series arrangement of relationship indices each corresponding to one of the plurality of segments (claim 5) wherein the relationship improvement plan information includes event information corresponding to the relationship indices arranged in a time series (claim 7) wherein the at least one feature value includes one or more of a feature of image information, a feature of voice, a feature of physiological information, and a feature of the work information; (claim 12) wherein the information indicating that the improvement is not being made is output in the form of at least one of a display image, sound, vibration, and light; (claim 13) acquire use meeting information and work information of one or more other users, and calculate a relationship index for a set of users including the plurality of users and the one or more other users; (claim 14) information includes information on a ranking of the combinations of users, based on the relationship indices calculated for the plurality of combinations of users; (claim 15) wherein the plurality of users belongs to a same organization, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements – (claim 1) circuitry, terminal device(s), extract, memory; camera, microphone; real-time (claim 17) a non-transitory recording medium, processor(s). These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea, as it adds the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, claims 1-5, 7, 12-17 have been fully analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements recited that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations fail to include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AKITOMI et al. (US 2013/0053086 A1), hereinafter “Akitomi”, over Peters et al. (US 2021/0076002 A1), hereinafter “Peters”.
Regarding Claim 1, Akitomi teaches An information processing system comprising: circuitry configured to: (Akitomi, Abstract, An information processing system including plural terminals, a base station to communicate with the terminals, and a management server coupled via a network to the base station; para 0051, The management server SV1 is comprised of an interface IF1 coupled to a cable network LAN1, and a processor CPU1, a memory MEM1, a sensor database SD1, and a recording device DB1);
acquire, from a terminal device used by each of a plurality of users, user meeting information indicating a state of a corresponding one of the plurality of users in a meeting in which the plurality of users participate, the user meeting information including either image information acquired by a camera, voice information acquired by a microphone, or both, each of which is acquired during the meeting; (Akitomi, para 0048, installed in meeting places such as conference rooms, laboratories, or coffee break areas …The work meeting places of each worker can in this way be known by sending this information by way of the wireless communication; Abstract, a behavioral information sensor to acquire behavioral information on the person wearing the terminal; para 0126, technique for deciding whether each worker is in an activity state or not ... Taking positive action at work allows gathering information from within and outside the organization and promotes the forming of ideal through energetic discussion. Some actions assumed in such cases might include, “face-to-face meetings including gestures as well as words” and “face-to-face meetings by heading toward the location where the other party is present”; Akitomi, para 0043, The worker WKR1 retains a sensor node ... The sensor node is a sensor device as for voice); calculate a relationship index indicating a relationship between the plurality of users based on the acquired user meeting information and the acquired work information, and (Akitomi, para 0016, FIG. 6 is a drawing for describing the team (also called structural) relation index; Akitomi, Figure 19, para 0126, Taking positive action at work allows gathering information from within and outside the organization and promotes the forming of ideal through energetic discussion. The present inventors carried out experiments relating to the activity and action (or movement) rhythm of such users and the consequent results such as from video data, and discovered that compared to other time bands, the time band for active work has a high acceleration frequency); store the relationship index in a memory; and (Akitomi, para 0016, FIG. 6 is a drawing for describing the team (also called structural) relation index; Akitomi, para 0147, teaches calculates the face-to-face time RCH1 for all two person combinations within the organization and stores those results in the face-to-face time matrix RCHMM1 as shown in FIG. 15; para 0043, teaches a memory);
calculate, for at least one feature value of the user meeting information and the work information, feature value influence information indicating a degree of influence of the feature value on calculation of the relationship index, by either performing image processing on the acquired image information, voice processing on the acquired voice information, or both; (Akitomi, para 0201, all the two-person estimated face-to-face times in the same way and stores these times in the estimated face-to-face time matrix; Akitomi, Figure 19, para 0126, The present inventors carried out experiments relating to the activity and action (or movement) rhythm of such users and the consequent results such as from video data (Examiner notes voice); Akitomi, para 0094, relation characteristics quantities are known to strongly reflect how an individual associates with other persons (Examiner notes influence). Quantitatively determining these related characteristic quantities; Akitomi, para 0016, FIG. 6 is a drawing for describing the team (also called structural) relation index).
Yet, Akitomi does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor; Peters teaches acquire work information related to a history of work-related activities of the plurality of users; (See at least Peters, para 0140, 0157-0158, teaching performance of individuals in a communication session. For example, the system can measure effectiveness of a manager regarding how well they facilitate participation and collaboration among groups. For example, the actions of managers or facilitators in meetings, and the emotional responses they produce can be correlated with employee performance, sales, task completion, employee retention, and other measures. The system can then inform individuals which aspects e.g., topics, meeting durations, meeting sizes or participants per meeting, frequency of meetings, type/range/intensity of presenter emotions, speaking time distributions, etc.) generate relationship improvement plan information including a method for improving a feature value having a negative influence on the relationship index, based on the calculated feature value influence information; (Peters teaches improvement of negative features during a meeting in real-time throughout. See at least Peters, Abstract, discussing “enhanced conference management... a computer system obtains participant data indicative of emotional or cognitive states of participants during communication sessions....The system analyzes relationships among emotional or cognitive states of the participants and the outcomes indicated by the result data, and identifies an emotional or cognitive state that is predicted to promote or discourage the occurrence of a target outcome.... a recommended action predicted to encourage or discourage the identified emotional or cognitive state in a communication session (Examiner notes relationship improvement plan)); cause the terminal device relationship improvement pla(See at least Peters, Abstract, The system provides output data indicating at least one of (i) the identified emotional or cognitive state predicted to promote or discourage occurrence of the particular target outcome, or (ii) a recommended action predicted to encourage or discourage the identified emotional or cognitive state in a communication session); determine in real time during the meeting whether an improvement according to the relationship improvement plan information is being made by calculating the feature value having the negative influence in real time based on the user meeting information; and (See at least Peters, para 0006, teaches “the system can provide an automated moderator module that can actively make changes to the way media streams are transmitted and presented, based on collaboration factor scores determined through real-time analysis of the video streams. The system can also provide feedback regarding participation based on principles of neuroscience, and can adjust parameters of the video conference session based on those factors; Further, see at least Peters, para 0122, recites: “help improve the participation and emotional and cognitive state of the participants. For example, people who are detected as angry can be shown people who are detected as calm”, Examiner notes this is happening in real-time to generate a targeted improvement); in response to determining that the improvement is not being made, cause the terminal device to output information indicating that the improvement is not being made in real time during the meeting (Peters, para 0003, cognitive states of participants in a communication session and provide feedback about participants during the communication session. The communication session can be a class, a lecture, a web-based seminar, a video conference, or other type of communication session... Using image data or video data showing the participants, the system can measure different emotions (e.g., happiness, sadness, anger, etc.) as well as cognitive attributes (e.g., engagement, attention, stress, etc.) for the participants; See at least Peters, para 0122, recites: “help improve the participation and emotional and cognitive state of the participants. For example, people who are detected as angry can be shown people who are detected as calm”, Examiner notes this is happening in real-time to generate a targeted improvement). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akitomi with acquire work information related to a history of work-related activities of the plurality of users... generate relationship improvement plan information including a method for improving a feature value having a negative influence on the relationship index, based on the calculated feature value influence information; cause the terminal device relationship improvement pladetermine in real time during the meeting whether an improvement according to the relationship improvement plan information is being made by calculating the feature value having the negative influence in real time based on the user meeting information; and in response to determining that the improvement is not being made, cause the terminal device to output information indicating that the improvement is not being made in real time during the meeting as taught by Peters with the motivation for enhanced video conference management including a recommended action predicted to encourage or discourage an identified emotional or cognitive state in a communication session (Peters, Abstract).The Akitomi invention now incorporating the Peters invention, has all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Akitomi, now incorporating Peters, teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the user meeting information further includes physiological information of the plurality of users (Akitomi, para 0043, The worker WKR1 retains a sensor node mounted on a name tag or a wrist band. The sensor node is a sensor device comprised of a processor circuit, a wireless circuit coupled to an antenna, a sensor such as for voice, acceleration, temperature (Examiner notes physiological information of user); para 0138, Activity state judgments for example may be made based on voice intensity; para 0126, relating to the activity and action (or movement) rhythm of such users).
Regarding Claim 3, Akitomi, now incorporating Peters, teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to divide the meeting into a plurality of segments, and the relationship improvement plan information includes either a value of the relationship index for each of the plurality of segments, graphical information representing the value, or both the value and the graphical information (See at least Akitomi, Figure 12, para 0137-0138, teaches calculating data in time units; Further, see for example, Akitomi, para 0149 and Figure 15, teaches the time per day that the workers W1 and W2 met face-to-face during the target period was 20 minutes); Akitomi, para 0234; 0016, FIG. 6 is a drawing for describing the team (also called structural) relation index, Examiner notes Figure 6 is information on a graphical representation of the values; See at least Peters, Abstract, teaching enhanced conference management... a recommended action predicted to encourage or discourage the identified emotional or cognitive state in a communication session (Examiner notes relationship improvement plan)).
Regarding Claim 4, Akitomi, now incorporating Peters, teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to divide the meeting into a plurality of segments, and the relationship improvement plan information includes information representing a time-series arrangement of relationship indices each corresponding to one of the plurality of segments (Akitomi, para 0234, teaches work plans; See at least Peters, Abstract, teaching enhanced conference management... a recommended action predicted to encourage or discourage the identified emotional or cognitive state in a communication session (Examiner notes relationship improvement plan); Akitomi, Figures 11 and 12, teaches a time series in a presentation; Further, see at least Peters, Figure 16, teaches timeline of presentation information; Even Further, Examiner notes other variations of presenting information are certainly within the ability of those having ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding Claim 5, Akitomi, now incorporating Peters, teaches The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the relationship improvement plan information includes event information corresponding to the relationship indices arranged in a time series (Akitomi, para 0098, teaches The team relation matrix TRM shown in FIG. 7 stores the team relation index TRI among optional two persons extracted from individual information contained in the individual information table TEAMINFO. The team relation index TRI just as shown in FIG. 6 is utilized to show information from the organization; Figures 11 and 12, teaches a time series in a presentation; See at least Peters, Abstract, teaching enhanced conference management... a recommended action predicted to encourage or discourage the identified emotional or cognitive state in a communication session (Examiner notes relationship improvement plan); Further, see at least Peters, Figure 16, teaches timeline of presentation information; Examiner notes other variations of presenting information are certainly within the ability of those having ordinary skill in the art).
Regarding Claim 7, Akitomi, now incorporating Peters, teaches The information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the at least one feature value includes. (Akitomi, para 0043, The worker WKR1 retains a sensor node mounted on a name tag or a wrist band. The sensor node is a sensor device comprised of a processor circuit, a wireless circuit coupled to an antenna, a sensor such as for voice; acceleration, temperature (Examiner notes physiological information of user); para 0138, Activity state judgments for example may be made based on voice intensity; Akitomi, Figure 19, para 0126, Taking positive action at work allows gathering information from within and outside the organization ...The present inventors carried out experiments relating to the activity and action (or movement) rhythm of such users; Further, Peters teaches facial and voice feature information throughout, see at least Peters, para 0131).
Regarding Claim 12, Akitomi, now incorporating Peters, teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the information indicating that the improvement is not being made is output in the form of at least one of a display image, sound, vibration, and light (Akitomi, para 0126, here we judge the time band where the acceleration frequency exceeds a specified (or certain) threshold value as the activity state. A typical acceleration frequency is 2 HZ or higher (Examiner notes sound); See at least Peters, Abstract, teaching a recommended action predicted to encourage or discourage the identified emotional or cognitive state in a communication session (Examiner notes relationship improvement plan); Peters, para 0215, The speaking clock may visually, or potentially audibly, alert a participant when the participant has been talking more than m/n minutes).
Regarding Claim 13, Akitomi, now incorporating Peters, teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
acquire, use meeting information and, ...(Akitomi, para 0048, installed in meeting places such as conference rooms, laboratories, or coffee break areas …. The work meeting places of each worker can in this way be known by sending this information by way of the wireless communication; Abstract, a behavioral information sensor to acquire behavioral information on the person wearing the terminal; para 0126, technique for deciding whether each worker is in an activity state or not ... Taking positive action at work allows gathering information from within and outside the organization and promotes the forming of ideal through energetic discussion. Some actions assumed in such cases might include, “face-to-face meetings including gestures as well as words” and “face-to-face meetings by heading toward the location where the other party is present”.); calculate the relationship index for a set of users including the plurality of users and the one or more other users (Akitomi, para 0016, FIG. 6 is a drawing for describing the team (also called structural) relation index; Further, see Akitomi, Figure 18, teaches display relation characteristics; Further, Akitomi, para 0221 and throughout Akitomi teaches various displays of data). Yet, Akitomi does not appear to explicitly teach and in the same field of endeavor; Peters teaches work information of one or more other users from the memory, and (See at least Peters, para 0140, 0157-0158, teaching performance of individuals in a communication session. For example, the system can measure effectiveness of a manager regarding how well they facilitate participation and collaboration among groups. For example, the actions of managers or facilitators in meetings, and the emotional responses they produce can be correlated with employee performance, sales, task completion, employee retention, and other measures. The system can then inform individuals which aspects e.g., topics, meeting durations, meeting sizes or participants per meeting, frequency of meetings, type/range/intensity of presenter emotions, speaking time distributions, etc.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Akitomi with work information of one or more other users from the memory, as taught by Peters with the motivation for enhanced video conference management including a recommended action predicted to encourage or discourage an identified emotional or cognitive state in a communication session (Peters, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 14, Akitomi, now incorporating Peters, teaches The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the relationship improvement plan (Akitomi, Abstract, An information processing system including plural terminals, a base station to communicate with the terminals, and a management server coupled via a network to the base station; para 0051, The management server SV1 is comprised of an interface IF1 coupled to a cable network LAN1, and a processor CPU1, a memory MEM1, a sensor database SD1, and a recording device DB1; See at least Peters, Abstract, teaching enhanced conference management... a recommended action predicted to encourage or discourage the identified emotional or cognitive state in a communication session (Examiner notes relationship improvement plan)); information includes information on a ranking of the combinations of users, based on the relationship indices calculated for a plurality of combinations of users (Akitomi, para 0103, the team (structural) relation index TRI showing the relation between the worker W2 and worker W3 is “s1” as viewed by the worker W3. ... The worker 5 is a boss one rank higher in another team of the same group as seen by the worker W3 so the team (structural) relation index TRI showing the relation between the worker W3 and worker W5 … The worker W9 and the worker W11 are bosses one rank higher of another group).
Regarding Claim 15, Akitomi, now incorporating Peters, teaches The information processing system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of users belongs to a same organization (Akitomi, para 0102, two workers belong to the same company group).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the claims are an obvious variant to claim 1 above, and are therefore rejected on the same premise. Akitomi further teaches a non-transitory recording medium storing a plurality of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the processors to perform an information processing method. See at least Akitomi, para 0009, a processor coupled to the network interface, and a storage device coupled to the processor; para 0069, teaches a read-only memory.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed on 04/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding 35 U.5.C. § 101 rejections: Examiner has updated the 101 rejection in light of the most recent claim amendments and maintains the 101 rejection. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive. With respect to the abstract idea, the claimed invention falls within at least the abstract groupings of both certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes as explained in the above 101 analysis. Examiner respectfully notes, Applicant appears to be confusing the additional elements (e.g. camera, microphone etc.) under Step 2A: Prong One: Abstract Ideas. The additional elements are analyzed in Step 2A: Prong Two and Step 2B of the 101 analysis. With respect to Applicant’s remarks on integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the computing elements (circuitry, terminal device(s), extract, memory; camera, microphone; real-time; non-transitory recording medium, processor(s)) are additional elements to perform the steps and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computing, see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Examiner has reviewed Applicants claims and specification and has found only generic computing elements used in their ordinary capacity. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea; the computer elements merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). With respect to Example 47, claim 3, recites: “A method of using an artificial neural network (ANN) to detect malicious network packets comprising: (a) training, by a computer, the ANN based on input data and a selected training algorithm to generate a trained ANN, wherein the selected training algorithm includes a backpropagation algorithm and a gradient descent algorithm; (b) detecting one or more anomalies in network traffic using the trained ANN; (c) determining at least one detected anomaly is associated with one or more malicious network packets; 4 (d) detecting a source address associated with the one or more malicious network packets in real time; (e) dropping the one or more malicious network packets in real time; and (f) blocking future traffic from the source address.” Examiner respectfully notes the instant invention is not analogous to Example 47, claim 3, as it is not generating a trained ANN to detect malicious network packets. Rather, the instant claims are directed to improving user meeting sessions.
Further, with respect to Applicant’s remarks (page 12) arguing a “technological closed-loop intervention”, Examiner respectfully does not find these remarks persuasive, as a “closed-loop” is not claimed nor in Applicant’s specification. Further, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Each step does no more than require a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. In addition, the claims do not affect an improvement in any
other technology or technical field. The specification spells out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using the concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access. Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer(s). Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the 101 rejection with respect to these and all depending claims unless otherwise indicated.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections. With respect to the prior art rejections, Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are found unpersuasive. Examiner has updated the rejections in light of the most recent claim amendments with the Akitomi and Peters references. With respect to Applicant’s remarks on newly amended limitations, see above updated 103 rejection. With respect to Applicant’s remarks (page 13): “While Peters discloses "monitoring emotion" and "providing feedback," these actions do not teach or suggest the specific algorithmic feedback loop required by amended claim 1. Specifically, claim 1 requires:
"determine in real time during the meeting whether an improvement according to the relationship improvement plan information is being made by calculating the feature value having the negative influence in real time based on the user meeting information"...”
Applicant’s remarks (page 14): “...The cited art merely discloses general relationship or emotional analyses but completely fails to teach identifying a negative-influence feature value from this combined data set to generate a targeted improvement plan, let alone dynamically verifying the improvement of that specific negative feature in real time during the meeting...” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial matter, while Applicant argues “specific algorithmic feedback loop”, Examiner respectfully notes a “feedback loop” is not claimed, nor in Applicant’s specification. Let alone a “specific algorithmic feedback loop”. Further, Peters teaches improvement of negative features during a meeting in real-time throughout. See at least Peters, Abstract, discussing “enhanced video conference management. In some implementations, a computer system obtains participant data indicative of emotional or cognitive states of participants during communication sessions. The system also obtains result data indicating outcomes associated with the communication sessions. The system analyzes relationships among emotional or cognitive states of the participants and the outcomes indicated by the result data, and identifies an emotional or cognitive state that is predicted to promote or discourage the occurrence of a target outcome. The system provides output data indicating at least one of (i) the identified emotional or cognitive state predicted to promote or discourage occurrence of the particular target outcome, or (ii) a recommended action predicted to encourage or discourage the identified emotional or cognitive state in a communication session.” Further, see at least Peters, para 0006, teaches “the system can provide an automated moderator module that can actively make changes to the way media streams are transmitted and presented, based on collaboration factor scores determined through real-time analysis of the video streams. The system can also provide feedback regarding participation based on principles of neuroscience, and can adjust parameters of the video conference session based on those factors.” Even further, see at least Peters, para 0122, recites: “help improve the participation and emotional and cognitive state of the participants. For example, people who are detected as angry can be shown people who are detected as calm”, Examiner notes this is happening in real-time to generate a targeted improvement. Therefore, Applicants remarks are found unpersuasive and Examiner has updated maintains the 103 rejections for all claims.
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 REBECCA R NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)272-2524. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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.
/R.R.N./ Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights