DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 07/25/2023. Claims 1 - 20 are pending and have
been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwager et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0155058, hereinafter “Schwager”).
Regarding Claim 1, Schwager teaches
A computer-implemented method (see Schwager Abstract, method) comprising:
identifying a first set of participants in a web meeting, the first set of participants speaking about a first topic (see Schwager Paragraph [0019], each participant portion of the conversation is assigned a recognized sub-content based on the content scores. That is, a topic of a conversation is recognized and the participants involved are recognized, Paragraph [0064], a first participant 7, a second participant 8, a third participant 9, a fourth participant 10, and a fifth participant 11 are shown in an online meeting within a computer network 1. Each participant 7,8,9,10,11 speaks (or can speak) and then each delivers sub-content 18,19,20,21,22 to the computer network 1, Paragraph [0065], The AI algorithm 12 assigns a content score to each sub-content 18,19,20,21,22 by means of the method and thus makes intersections 23,24,25 (compare with FIG. 2). By means of the intersections 23,24, conversation groups 26,27,28 are then created within the online meeting);
establishing a first conversation group associated with the first topic including the first set of participants (see Schwager Paragraph [0065], The AI algorithm 12 assigns a content score to each sub-content 18,19,20,21,22 by means of the method and thus makes intersections 23,24,25 (compare with FIG. 2). By means of the intersections 23,24, conversation groups 26,27,28 are then created within the online meeting);
identifying a second set of participants in the web meeting, the second set of participants speaking about a second topic (see Schwager Paragraph [0019], each participant portion of the conversation is assigned a recognized sub-content based on the content scores. That is, a topic of a conversation is recognized and the participants involved are recognized, Paragraph [0064], a first participant 7, a second participant 8, a third participant 9, a fourth participant 10, and a fifth participant 11 are shown in an online meeting within a computer network 1. Each participant 7,8,9,10,11 speaks (or can speak) and then each delivers sub-content 18,19,20,21,22 to the computer network 1, Paragraph [0065], The AI algorithm 12 assigns a content score to each sub-content 18,19,20,21,22 by means of the method and thus makes intersections 23,24,25 (compare with FIG. 2). By means of the intersections 23,24, conversation groups 26,27,28 are then created within the online meeting);
establishing a second conversation group associated with the second topic including the second set of participants (see Schwager Paragraph [0065], The AI algorithm 12 assigns a content score to each sub-content 18,19,20,21,22 by means of the method and thus makes intersections 23,24,25 (compare with FIG. 2). By means of the intersections 23,24, conversation groups 26,27,28 are then created within the online meeting), the second conversation group audibly connected to the first conversation group and the first conversation group audibly connected to the second conversation group (see Schwager Paragraph [0026] It is further proposed in an advantageous embodiment of the method that in step d. when the volume level is lowered, the conversational content of the participant portions in question is still comprehensible by a participant, preferably perceived as a low interference, Paragraph [0027], the respective participant is still able to follow a different participant portion (i.e., a different conversation than their own). This is possible, for example with concentrated listening, or listening alongside); and
for members of the first conversation group, setting a second group volume of members of the second conversation group lower than a first group volume of members of the first conversation group (see Schwager Paragraph [0065], For the (for example, second) participant 8 belonging to the respective (for example, first) separate conversation group 27, the (first) participant 7 belonging to this (first) separate conversation group 27 or their (first) participant portion 13 is highlighted by means of the (correspondingly, for example, second) user interface 3. With regard to the language, i.e., the (first) participant portion 13, this is achieved by increasing the volume level for the other (second) user 8 within the relevant (first) separate conversation group 27 and/or by reducing the volume level of the participant portions 15,16,17 in the common conversation group 26 and, if necessary, the second separate conversation group 28).
Regarding Claim 4, Schwager teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
presenting a user interface to the first set of participants for selecting a reduced group volume associated with the second group volume (see Schwager Paragraph [0021], the volume level of individual participants is adjusted by means of a respective user interface, Paragraph [0024], How this is switched is, for example, individually set by a participant on their user interface or an algorithm controlling its user interface, Paragraph [0027], the respective participant is still able to follow a different participant portion (i.e., a different conversation than their own). This is possible, for example with concentrated listening, or listening alongside. The respective participant can determine this for himself personally as a fixed setting depending on the individual (for example, when a superior speaks, to reproduce this louder than when a participant of the same order speaks). In one embodiment, it is also dynamically and/or readily controlled, for example by clicking on certain participants on a graphical user interface or by means of an AI algorithm (for example, the one mentioned herein) that recognizes the relevance for a participant), the second group volume being microphone volumes (see Schwager Paragraph [0016], voice recognition is used to assign a speech contribution as a participant portion to the respective associated participant, for example, if two or more participants share a microphone or even an entire user interface, Paragraph [0064], a first participant 7, a second participant 8, a third participant 9, a fourth participant 10, and a fifth participant 11 are shown in an online meeting within a computer network 1. Each participant 7,8,9,10,11 speaks (or can speak) and then each delivers sub-content 18,19,20,21,22 to the computer network 1. The participants 7,8,9,10,11 each interact with a user interface 2,3,4,5,6, which is configured here as a computer 30 (purely optionally) along with an audio playback unit and audio-recording unit), as received by the first set of participants, of the second set of participants (see Schwager Paragraph [0026] It is further proposed in an advantageous embodiment of the method that in step d. when the volume level is lowered, the conversational content of the participant portions in question is still comprehensible by a participant, preferably perceived as a low interference, Paragraph [0027], the respective participant is still able to follow a different participant portion (i.e., a different conversation than their own). This is possible, for example with concentrated listening, or listening alongside).
Regarding Claim 7, Schwager teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
monitoring spoken language in the web meeting for candidate topics (see Schwager Abstract, using an AI algorithm, monitoring and recognizing content of a conversation of the participants in the online meeting, Paragraph [0064], a first participant 7, a second participant 8, a third participant 9, a fourth participant 10, and a fifth participant 11 are shown in an online meeting within a computer network 1. Each participant 7,8,9,10,11 speaks (or can speak) and then each delivers sub-content 18,19,20,21,22 to the computer network 1, Paragraph [0065], The AI algorithm 12 assigns a content score to each sub-content 18,19,20,21,22 by means of the method and thus makes intersections 23,24,25);
determining a candidate topic satisfies a group threshold (see Schwager Paragraph [0065], The AI algorithm 12 assigns a content score to each sub-content 18,19,20,21,22 by means of the method and thus makes intersections 23,24,25, Paragraph [0066], It is therefore possible to recognize the spoken content of each participant 7,8,9,10,11 of the online meeting, to distribute person-related (i.e., participant-related) content scores and to assign them to the other participants 11,10,9,8,7 with a same or similar conversational content, i.e., an intersection 23,24,25 of the content scores, Paragraph [0067], Over the course of the online meeting, which is shown in the table in this exemplary embodiment from left to right, common intersections 23 of the content scores of the participant portions 13,14,15,16,17 arise among the participants 7,8, which are then broken up into a separate conversation group 27,28, Paragraph [0068], For example, at the first event 32, the first participant 7 talks about a topic (first participant portion 13), which may deviate from the set topic for the common conversation group 26. The second participant 8 responds with their (second) participant portion 14, whereby the AI algorithm 12 recognizes an intersection of the respective content scores of the two participant portions 13,14. Thus, these two participants 7,8 are automatically moved to a first separate conversation group 27); and
establishing a fourth conversation group associated with the candidate topic, the fourth conversation group including a fourth set of participants discussing the candidate topic in the web meeting (see Schwager Paragraph [0068], whereby the AI algorithm 12 recognizes an intersection of the respective content scores of the two participant portions 13,14. Thus, these two participants 7,8 are automatically moved to a first separate conversation group 27, Paragraph [0067], Over the course of the online meeting, which is shown in the table in this exemplary embodiment from left to right, common intersections 23 of the content scores of the participant portions 13,14,15,16,17 arise among the participants 7,8, which are then broken up into a separate conversation group 27,28, therefore numerous separate conversation groups are established throughout the meeting).
Regarding Claims 8, 11 and 13, they are rejected similarly as Claims 1, 4 and 7, respectively. The computer program product can be found in Schwager (Paragraph [0059], computer program product).
Regarding Claims 14, 17 and 20, they are rejected similarly as Claims 1, 4 and 7, respectively. The system can be found in Schwager (Figure 1, system).
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.
Claims 2, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwager et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0155058, hereinafter “Schwager”) in view of Konam et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0223016, hereinafter “Konam”).
Regarding Claim 2, Schwager teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
monitoring spoken language by participants in the web meeting to identify the first topic (see Schwager Abstract, using an AI algorithm, monitoring and recognizing content of a conversation of the participants in the online meeting), the participants including the first and second sets of participants (see Schwager Paragraph [0064], a first participant 7, a second participant 8, a third participant 9, a fourth participant 10, and a fifth participant 11 are shown in an online meeting within a computer network 1. Each participant 7,8,9,10,11 speaks (or can speak) and then each delivers sub-content 18,19,20,21,22 to the computer network 1, Paragraph [0065], The AI algorithm 12 assigns a content score to each sub-content 18,19,20,21,22 by means of the method and thus makes intersections 23,24,25);
Schwager does not expressively teach
recording the first topic to a database including topic name, participant identification, and timestamp.
However, Konam teaches
recording the first topic to a database including topic name, participant identification, and timestamp (see Konam Paragraph [0112], the recording may be received from a user device associated with one of the parties, and may include various metadata regarding the conversation. Such metadata may include one or more of: the identities of one or more parties, a location where the conversation took place, a time where the conversation took place, a name for the conversation or recording, a user-selected topic of the conversation, whether additional audio sources exist for the same conversation or portions of the conversation (e.g., whether two or more parties are submitting separate recordings of one conversation), etc., Paragraph [0128], the NLP system stores the transcript and analysis outputs (including the hyperlinks) to a storage system).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of establishing separate conversation groups in a web meeting based on a specific discussed topic, in which the separate conversation groups are audibly connected, and other separate conversation groups that a user is not a part of have a lower volume than the separate conversation group that the user is participating in (as taught in Schwager), with recording data regarding a conversation including conversation topic name, participant identification, and time (as taught in Konam), the motivation being to identify key information from a discussion that provides semantic context for the key point within the conversation to help understand and recognize the context of the discussion (see Konam Paragraphs [0002] and [0005]).
Regarding Claim 9, it is rejected similarly as Claim 2. The computer program product can be found in Schwager (Paragraph [0059], computer program product).
Regarding Claim 15, it is rejected similarly as Claim 2. The system can be found in Schwager (Figure 1, system).
Claims 3, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwager et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0155058, hereinafter “Schwager”) in view of Harrington (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0052863).
Regarding Claim 3, Schwager teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second group volume is representative of a designated distance between the first set of participants and the second set of participants according to a calculated sound pressure.
However, Harrington teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second volume is representative of a designated distance between the first participant and the second participant according to a calculated sound pressure (see Harrington Paragraph [0010], The application includes a trigonometric function to calculate an adjustment to the audio volume (i.e., total decibel output) and balance (i.e., relative left and right audio volume) based on the location of the listener relative to the speaker (e.g., a virtual distance and virtual angle between the speaker and the listener)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of establishing separate conversation groups in a web meeting based on a specific discussed topic, in which the separate conversation groups are audibly connected, and other separate conversation groups that a user is not a part of have a lower volume than the separate conversation group that the user is participating in (as taught in Schwager), with a second volume representative of a designated distance between a first participant and a second participant that is according to a calculated sound pressure (as taught in Harrington), the motivation being to provide a more true-to-life virtual meeting experience with enhanced functionality that helps increase meeting participant engagement, productivity, and interpersonal interaction (see Harrington Paragraph [0009]).
Regarding Claim 10, it is rejected similarly as Claim 3. The computer program product can be found in Schwager (Paragraph [0059], computer program product).
Regarding Claim 16, it is rejected similarly as Claim 3. The system can be found in Schwager (Figure 1, system).
Claims 5, 6, 12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwager et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0155058, hereinafter “Schwager”) in view of Cattermole et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0351719, hereinafter “Cattermole”).
Regarding Claim 5, Schwager teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
monitoring audio in the second conversation group (see Schwager Abstract, using an AI algorithm, monitoring and recognizing content of a conversation of the participants in the online meeting); and
closing the second conversation group, and reassigning the second set of participants to other conversation groups in the web meeting (see Schwager Paragraph [0031], monitoring and recognition of command words, wherein at least one command word is predefined for at least one of the following actions: ending a separate conversation group, wherein preferably the separate conversation group has been configured by adjusting the level volume according to step d. (Paragraph [0034]), collecting all participants in a common conversation group (Paragraph [0035])).
Schwager does not expressively teach
responsive to the second topic not being discussed for a specified period of time,
However, Cattermole teaches
responsive to the topic not being discussed for a specified period of time (see Cattermole Paragraph [0115], a timing function detects that a first period of inactivity on a particular topic has elapsed, Paragraph [0119], topic is timed out and closed after a predefined period of time has passed),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the teaching of establishing separate conversation groups in a web meeting based on a specific discussed topic, in which the separate conversation groups are audibly connected, and other separate conversation groups that a user is not a part of have a lower volume than the separate conversation group that the user is participating in, in which separate conversation groups can be closed and users can return to common conversation group (as taught in Schwager), with determining a topic has not been discussed for a specified period of time (as taught in Cattermole), the motivation being to end a topic discussion if necessary to promote greater productivity from discussions, so that an organization providing, hosting or using the online collaboration environment can realize greater benefit from the group members' interaction (see Cattermole Paragraphs [0119] and [0064]).
Regarding Claim 6, Schwager in view of Cattermole teaches
The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein reassigning the second set of participants includes:
matching a topic of interest of a participant in the second set of participants with a third topic associated with a third conversation group (see Schwager Paragraph [0070], For example, at the third event 34, the third participant 9 talks about a topic (third participant portion 15), which may have a third intersection 25 (which may deviate from the initial first intersection 23) with the current topic in the first separate conversation group 27. The third participant 9 is then automatically moved to the first separate conversation group 27 at least by means of the previously described adjustment of the volume levels of the respective participant portions 13,14,15,16,17 because the AI algorithm 12 recognized this intersection 25 with the participant portions 13,14 in the first separate conversation group 27, in which the third participant is in the common conversation group, and discusses a sub-content that intersects with a separate conversation group, and thus joins them).
Regarding Claim 12, it is rejected similarly as Claim 5. The computer program product can be found in Schwager (Paragraph [0059], computer program product).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, they are rejected similarly as Claims 5 and 6, respectively. The system can be found in Schwager (Figure 1, system).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARISSA A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-1677. The examiner can normally be reached Telework M-F 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM CT.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 5712727503. 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.
/CARISSA A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights