DETAILED ACTION
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 Status
Claims 1 - 20 are currently pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered.
In response to argument “1” on pages 6-7, Youel appears to teach the argued claim limitation “identify a process identifier (ID) assigned to a voice conferencing session executed on the electronic device, the process ID being a unique identifier assigned by the electronic device to distinguish multiple processes being executed by the processor” in claim 1 and in similar claims 6 and 11. According to paragraph [0040] and Fig. 4 - Fig. 5 of Youel, each participant attending the voice conference is assigned with a unique participant identifier (e.g., 168A – 168F) that enables the system to uniquely distinguish and track action items triggered by each participant.
In response to argument “A” on pages 7-8, the participant identifier is assigned to identify the speech or voice conference session made by the specific participant during the conference call. For purposes of clarification, “voice conference session” is interpreted to mean the involvement / speeches of the participant from the time the participant joins until the time leaves the conference call. An example is shown in Fig. 4, where the participant identifier 140 is used to identify the speeches 146, 154 made by the participant during the conference session.
A review of the Applicant’s argument appears to suggest that the “process identifier” is an identifier of a conference call itself and should be clarified to narrow the interpretation of the claim limitation.
However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the current claim limitation, “identify a process identifier (ID) assigned to a voice conferencing session executed on the electronic device” can be read to include the instances where the system identifies the participant identifier when the participant makes a speech. The participant identifier was assigned when the participant first joined the conference call. In this case, the interpretation of the “process identifier” is equivalent to the participant identifier (e.g., 168A – 168F or 140-144) of Youel.
In response to argument “B” on pages 8-9, each participant identifier is unique and distinguishable from other participant identifiers. For example, the identifier 140 for participant 1 is unique and distinguishable from the identifier 142 for participant 2 and identifier 144 for participant 3. In this example provide by Youel, all participant identifiers are unique (e.g., 140, 142, 144)
In addition, the claim limitation appears to have a broader scope than the applicant’s arguments suggest. The claim limitation merely requires a “process ID being a unique identifier” yet the Applicant argues Youel fails to meet the limitation because Youel allegedly fails to teach all participant identifiers are unique.
However, the fact that Youel’s system is configured to monitor and track speech made by each participant in the conference call reflects that the system is able to uniquely identify each participant via a unique identifier in electronic form.
In response to argument “C” on pages 9-10, Youel teaches that each participant identifier is indeed assigned by the conference bridge, via electronic form, at the time the participant joins the conference call. For example, Youel describes that the conference bridge assigns the moderator the identifier 168A when the moderator creates the conference call and assigns a first participant the identifier 168B when the first participant joins the call. Additional identifiers are assigned by the controller bridge as more participants join. Furthermore, the conference bridge is also configured to assign the name of each participant (e.g., “John” or “David”). Although the unique identifiable names may not be originally created by the conference bridge but the assignment of those names to the corresponding participant is performed by the conference bridge. The creation of the screenshot shown in Fig. 5, where each participant is assigned with a unique participant identifier (e.g., 168A – 168F) and/or the corresponding name (e.g., “John” or “David”), is therefore considered to sufficiently teach the argued claim limitation.
In response to argument “D” on pages 10-11, Youel teaches the conference call includes multiple voice conference sessions, wherein each one of the multiple voice conference sessions is associated with a participant having a unique participant identifier. The “voice conference session” is being interpreted as the conference session of each participant from the time the participant joins to the time the participant leaves the conference call. In other words, the participant identifier is linked to the speeches made by the participant during the conference call. In one example shown in Fig. 4, the participant identifier 140 is linked to the speeches 146, 154 made by participant 1 and the participant identifier 142 is linked to the speech 148 made by participant 2. By utilizing these unique participant identifiers to distinguish between the speech of various participants attending the conference call simultaneously, the system is capable to identified audio trigger linked to participant within the conference call.
Accordingly, the rejection is sustained in view of the teachings and suggestions of the prior art by Youel, which clearly demonstrates the assignment of unique participant identifies and/or names by the conference system, thereby meeting the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Youel (Pub. No.: US 2014/0219434 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Youel teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions, which, when executed by a processor of an electronic device (abstract, Fig, 1, Fig. 6, conference controller 102 includes memories and processors to perform audio detection and action item generation.), cause the processor to:
identify a process identifier (ID) assigned to a voice conferencing session executed on the electronic device (Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and para [0040], “In this embodiment, the first defined area 164 is associated with a conference or other conversation. A first plurality of participant identifiers 168A.sub.1-168F (generally, participant identifier 168 or participant identifiers 168) is displayed in association with the first defined area 164. In one embodiment, the conference may have been initiated by, for example, the controlling participant 168A.sub.1 by clicking on a "New Conference" button 170, which may cause the first defined area 164 to be depicted. The controlling participant 168A.sub.1 may then "drag and drop" the desired participant identifiers 168 from a contacts list 172 into the first defined area 164.”. The system assigns an identifier (e.g., 168A -168F) to each participant that is participating in a conference call when the participant first joins the conference call. The system later identifies the participant identifier that was assigned to the participant when the participant makes a speech.), the process ID being a unique identifier assigned by the electronic device to distinguish multiple processes being executed by the processor (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, each participant identifier is unique (e.g., identifier 168A or “John” is distinguishable from identifier 168D or “David”).);
identify an audio thread using the process ID, the audio thread including audio data for the voice conferencing session (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, para [0036], “In the embodiment in FIG. 4, Participant 1/Moderator 140 speaks (block 146), at which point the audio is received by the conference bridge controller 110 and relayed to the other participants. In block 148, Participant 2 142 speaks next, and the associated audio is likewise relayed to the other participants by the conference bridge controller 110. In block 150, Participant 3 144 speaks and utters an audio trigger, which is relayed to the other participants by the conference bridge controller 110.”. The system identifies the audio threads associated with each participant. For example, the system identifies the moderator 168A has made a speech at step 146 of Fig. 4.);
identify an audio thread ID of the audio thread (Fig. 5, the system identifies John has made the audio thread with trigger words.);
use the audio thread ID to compare the audio data to a keyword to identify a match (Fig. 3, step 126, para [0019], “Embodiments disclosed in the detailed description include methods, apparatuses, and systems for generating an action item in response to a detected audio trigger during a conversation. Embodiments are disclosed that relate to generation of one or more action items in response to detection of an audio trigger. The audio trigger, such as a spoken command, keyword, audio tone, or other indicator, is detected during a conversation, such as an audio or video conference or peer-to-peer conversation.”. The system analyzes audio data from John to detect predefined audio triggers (e.g., keywords).); and
generate a notification for a user of the electronic device in response to the match (Fig. 3 step 130, and Fig. 5, generated action item 174. The system generates action item if keywords were detected).
Regarding claim 2, Youel teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
transcribe the audio data into text; and
compare the text to the keyword to identify the match (Fig. 5, para [0022], “The monitor function 112 may monitor the audio content of the conversation in a number of ways. For example, one or more microphones associated with each physical meeting location and/or participant may be configured to capture each participant's speech. The captured audio can then be transmitted to a central location where it can be centrally stored for later playback. The audio can also be analyzed by the monitor function 112 and other functions. The monitor function 112 may be capable of performing speech-to-text conversion of the audio content, such that the monitor function 112 is able to interpret the audio content. In other embodiments, the monitor function 112 can use phonetic speech recognition methods to convert the audio content into a format that the monitor function 112 can analyze.”).
Regarding claim 3, Youel teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
sample data from a plurality of threads associated with the process ID (Fig. 4 – Fig. 5, the system samples or captures a plurality of audio speeches from each participant);
determine that a thread of the plurality of threads comprises the audio data based on the sampling (Fig. 5, the system detects one of the speeches from John includes an audio trigger.); and
identify the thread of the plurality of threads as the audio thread based on the determination (Fig. 4, the system determines participant 2’s speech include an audio trigger at step 152 and displays the speech as an action item in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 4, Youel teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the notification comprises a visual notification presented on a display (Fig. 5 action item 174).
Regarding claim 6, Youel teaches a method, comprising:
identifying process identifiers (IDs) assigned by an electronic device for multiple voice conferencing sessions being executed simultaneously on the electronic device (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, and para [0040], “In this embodiment, the first defined area 164 is associated with a conference or other conversation. A first plurality of participant identifiers 168A.sub.1-168F (generally, participant identifier 168 or participant identifiers 168) is displayed in association with the first defined area 164. In one embodiment, the conference may have been initiated by, for example, the controlling participant 168A.sub.1 by clicking on a "New Conference" button 170, which may cause the first defined area 164 to be depicted. The controlling participant 168A.sub.1 may then "drag and drop" the desired participant identifiers 168 from a contacts list 172 into the first defined area 164.”. The system assigns an identifier to each participant attending a multiple participants conference call when the participants first join. The conference call includes multiple voice conference sessions, wherein each voice conference session is associated with the participant’s involvement and/or speeches made from the time the participant joins to the time the participant leaves.), the process IDs being unique identifiers assigned by the electronic device to distinguish multiple processes being executed on the electronic device (Fig. 5, participant identifier is unique (e.g., identifier 168A or “John” is distinguishable from identifier 168D or “David”).);
sampling data from threads associated with the process IDs;
determining that the threads include audio data for the voice conferencing sessions based on the sampling;
identifying audio thread IDs for the threads (Fig. 3, step 124, Fig. 4 -Fig. 5, para [0036], “In the embodiment in FIG. 4, Participant 1/Moderator 140 speaks (block 146), at which point the audio is received by the conference bridge controller 110 and relayed to the other participants. In block 148, Participant 2 142 speaks next, and the associated audio is likewise relayed to the other participants by the conference bridge controller 110. In block 150, Participant 3 144 speaks and utters an audio trigger, which is relayed to the other participants by the conference bridge controller 110.”. The system samples each participant’s audio to detect predefined audio triggers);
using the audio thread IDs to analyze the audio data for each of the threads (Fig. 3, step 126); and
cuing a user of the electronic device to provide input to one of the voice conferencing sessions based on the analysis (Fig. 3, Fig. 5, action item 174.).
Regarding claim 7, Youel teaches a method of claim 6, wherein a first of the process IDs is associated with a first voice conferencing application, and a second of the process IDs is associated with a second voice conferencing application that is different from the first voice conferencing application (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 5, each participant has a computer 106 that run its own conferencing application.).
Regarding claim 8, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejection for the same reason.
Regarding claim 10, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejection for the same reason.
Regarding claim 11, Youel teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a memory; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is to:
identify a process identifier (ID) assigned by the electronic device to a voice conferencing session executed on the electronic device, the process ID being a unique identifier assigned by the electronic device to distinguish multiple processes being executed by the processor;
identify a thread associated with the process ID that includes audio data for the voice conferencing session;
determine an audio thread ID for the thread and use the audio thread ID to access the audio data;
transcribe the audio data into text;
compare the text to a keyword stored in the memory;
determine that a user of the electronic device is being cued in the voice conferencing session based on the comparison; and
generate a notification for the user that input is requested in the voice conferencing session (The rejection is similar to the combination of claims 1 and 2.).
Regarding claim 12, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejection for the same reason.
Regarding claim 14, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejection for the same reason.
Regarding claim 15, Youel teaches the electronic device of claim 11, comprising a speaker coupled to the processor, wherein the notification comprises an audio feed of the voice conferencing session that is emitted from the speaker (para [0032], “With continuing reference to FIG. 3, notification of the participant (block 130), moderator or other authorized person of the generation of the action item (block 128) may comprise an audio notification in some embodiments. In some embodiments, the audio notification can include an alert sound, or can include a recorded or generated speech prompt informing one or more participants or other authorized persons that the action item has been generated.”. The system generates audio notification to inform the participant about the action item.).
Regarding claim 16, Youel teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the voice conferencing session comprises at least one of a voice call or a video conference (abstract “Embodiments include methods, apparatuses, and systems for generating an action item in response to a detected audio trigger during a conversation. Embodiments relate to generation of one or more action items in response to detection of an audio trigger, such as a spoken command, keyword, audio tone or other indicator, which is detected during a conversation, such as an audio or video conference or peer-to-peer conversation.”).
Regarding claim 17, Youel teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a client device of a participant in the voice conferencing session (Fig. 5, para [0039], “FIG. 5 illustrates an exemplary software user interface 162 for generating an action item according to one embodiment and that can be employed in the conference system 100 of FIG. 1 and the peer-to-peer system 117 of FIG. 2.”. Each participant uses a computer to join the conference call).
Regarding claim 18, Youel teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the voice conferencing session is one of a plurality of voice conferencing sessions executed simultaneously on the electronic device (Fig. 4 – Fig. 5, multiple participates are simultaneously attending the conference call.).
Regarding claim 19, Youel teaches the method of claim 6, wherein cuing the user comprises audibly cuing the user via a speaker (para [0032], “With continuing reference to FIG. 3, notification of the participant (block 130), moderator or other authorized person of the generation of the action item (block 128) may comprise an audio notification in some embodiments. In some embodiments, the audio notification can include an alert sound, or can include a recorded or generated speech prompt informing one or more participants or other authorized persons that the action item has been generated.”. The system generates audio notification to inform the participant about the action item.).
Regarding claim 20, Youel teaches the electronic device of claim 11, wherein the electronic device is at least one of a desktop computer, a laptop computer, an all-in-one computer, or a smartphone (Fig. 1, computer 106), and the voice conferencing session is at least one of a voice call or a video conference (abstract, “Embodiments include methods, apparatuses, and systems for generating an action item in response to a detected audio trigger during a conversation. Embodiments relate to generation of one or more action items in response to detection of an audio trigger, such as a spoken command, keyword, audio tone or other indicator, which is detected during a conversation, such as an audio or video conference or peer-to-peer conversation.”).
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 (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.
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 5, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braganza (Pub. No.: US 2022/0301557 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Youel teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the predefined audio trigger comprises of keywords (para [0019]).
Youel fails to expressly teach the keyword comprises a name of the user.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predefined keywords to include a name of the user since such modification involves only routine skill in the art to substitute or change a predefined keyword to a name of a user.
Regarding claim 9, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejection for the same reason.
Regarding claim 13, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejection for the same reason.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685