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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 12/1/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 4-12, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly identified prior art, as described in the new 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 4, 17, and 20 describe, “at least one of a recommendation and a feedback”, which is interpreted as at least one recommendation and at least one feedback. If this is not what the Applicant intends to describe then the examiner recommends an amendment along the lines of, “at least one of a recommendation or a feedback”.
Claim 3 describes, “at least one of a rate of speech, a tonal parameter, and a change in tone”, which is interpreted as at least one rate of speech, at least one tonal parameter, and at least one change in tone. If this is not what the Applicant intents to describe then the examiner recommends an amendment along the lines of, “at least one of a rate of speech, a tonal parameter, or a change in tone”.
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 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
RE claims 1, 17, and 20, they recite a method for providing real-time presentation feedback, a system for digital presentation assistance, and an article of manufacture including a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the method, system, and operations comprising:
[a piece of paper];
[a person listening]; and
one or more [a person] configured to:
receive, , audio data corresponding to a prepared presentation [a person listens to another person giving a presentation];
analyze, , the audio data to form analyzed audio data [a person comprehends what is stated in the presentation];
analyze, [using a person’s mind], the analyzed audio data relative to stored presentation data to form an analyzed presentation data [a person compares the presentation to the written presentation material], wherein to analyze the audio data relative to the stored presentation data includes comparing a written speech in the stored presentation data to a spoken speech in the audio data [a person compares the script of the written speech to what is stated in the presentation];
generate, , at least one of a recommendation and a feedback based on at least one of the analyzed audio data and the analyzed presentation data [a person comes up with a recommendation and feedback regarding the presentation as compared to the written presentation material]; and
transmit, [a person] and the [piece of paper], the at least one of the recommendation and the feedback based on the analyzed presentation data, for display on a [piece of paper] [a person writes the recommendation and feedback down on a piece of paper].
As described above, these claims recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited are a display device, an audio input device, one or more servers electronically coupled to the display device and the audio input device, a live speech analyzer, a generative artificial intelligence (AI) module, and a processor. However, these additional elements are nothing more than general-purpose hardware and software that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, either individually or as an ordered combination, they do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the additional elements of a display device, an audio input device, one or more servers electronically coupled to the display device and the audio input device, a live speech analyzer, a generative artificial intelligence (AI) module, and a processor are nothing more than general-purpose hardware and software that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, either individually or as an ordered combination, they do not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 2, it recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the analyzing the audio data includes comparing a value of an audio parameter to a preferred range of values of the audio parameter [a person can compare an audio parameter, such as speaking speed, to a preferred range of values], and
the feedback includes an indication that the value of the audio parameter is outside the preferred range of values in response to the audio parameter being outside the preferred range of values [a person can alert the presenter that they are speaking too quickly or too slow].
As described above, this claim recites a mental process.
The claim does not include any additional elements. Thus, the mental process is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 3, it recites the method of claim 2, wherein the audio parameter comprises at least one of a rate of speech, a tonal parameter, and a change in tone [a person can analyze a rate of speech, tonal parameter, and change in tone of a presenter].
As described above, this claim recites a mental process.
The claim does not include any additional elements. Thus, the mental process is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 4, it recites the method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting the at least one of the recommendation and the feedback is transmitted as text through the [piece of paper] [a person can write the recommendation and feedback as text on a piece of paper].
As described above, these claims recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited is a display device. However, this additional element is nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the additional elements of a display device is nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 6, it recites the method of claim 1, further comprising modifying, by [a person], a future speech text based on the analyzing the audio data relative to the presentation data associated with the prepared presentation [a person can modify the text to be displayed on a teleprompter based on an analysis of which portion of the presentation the presenter is currently discussing].
As described above, these claims recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited are one or more servers and a processor. However, these additional elements are nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, either individually or as an ordered combination, they do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the additional elements of one or more servers and a processor are nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, either individually or as an ordered combination, they do not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 7, it recites the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting, by , a written speech from the presentation data associated with the prepared presentation [a person can deliver a written speech to a presenter].
As described above, these claims recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited are one or more servers and a processor. However, these additional elements are nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, either individually or as an ordered combination, they do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the additional elements of one or more servers and a processor are nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, either individually or as an ordered combination, they do not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 8, it recites the method of claim 7, further comprising:
comparing, by [a person], an actual speech from the audio data to the written speech [a person can compare a spoken speech to a written speech]; and
modifying, [a person], the written speech based on the comparing [a person can modify the written speech based on the comparison of spoken to written].
As described above, these claims recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited are one or more servers and a generative artificial intelligence (AI) module. However, these additional elements are nothing more than general-purpose hardware and software that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, either individually or as an ordered combination, they do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the additional elements of one or more servers and a generative artificial intelligence (AI) module are nothing more than general-purpose hardware and software that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, either individually or as an ordered combination, they do not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 9, it recites the method of claim 8, wherein the modifying the written speech includes differentiating a modified text from original text [a person can differentiate modified text from original text when modifying the written speech].
As described above, this claim recites a mental process.
The claim does not include any additional elements. Thus, the mental process is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 10, it recites the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by [a person], the presentation data associated with the prepared presentation, the prepared presentation including a written speech [a person can receive presentation data, including a written speech]; and
storing, by [a person] and through a presentation [storage], the presentation data [a person can store the presentation data, such as in a filing cabinet].
As described above, these claims recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited are one or more servers and a database. However, these additional elements are nothing more than general-purpose hardware and software that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, either individually or as an ordered combination, they do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the additional elements of one or more servers and a database are nothing more than general-purpose hardware and software that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, either individually or as an ordered combination, they do not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 11, it recites the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by , a data input selecting one of a training mode or a presentation mode [a person can receive an indication from a presenter that they would like to either rehearse in a training mode or present as if they are giving a live presentation].
As described above, these claims recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited is one or more servers. However, this additional element is nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the additional elements of one or more servers is nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 12, it recites the method of claim 11, further comprising modifying, by [a person] and based on a selection of the training mode or the presentation mode, an output from [a person] [a person can modify their recommendations and feedback to a presenter based on whether the presenter would like training feedback or live presentation feedback].
As described above, these claims recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited is one or more servers. However, this additional element is nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the additional elements of one or more servers is nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 13, it recites the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by [a person], a practice presentation has ended [a person can determine that a practice presentation has ended]; and
generating, by [a person], a set of notes based on the analyzed audio data and the analyzed presentation data [a person can generate a set of feedback notes based on the person’s analysis of the presentation].
As described above, these claims recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited is one or more servers. However, this additional element is nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the additional elements of one or more servers is nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 14, it recites the method of claim 13, further comprising storing the set of notes in a presentation [storage] [a person can store the set of notes in a storage, such as a file cabinet].
As described above, these claims recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited is a database. However, this additional element is nothing more than general-purpose software that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the additional elements of a database is nothing more than general-purpose software that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 15, it recites the method of claim 14, wherein the presentation data associated with the prepared presentation includes the set of notes [a person can store all documents related to a presentation in the same location].
The claim does not include any additional elements. Thus, the mental process is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 16, it recites the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by [a person], question data associated with a topic of the prepared presentation [a person can listen to a question being asked];
determining, by [a person], an answer to a question associated with the question data [a person can determine an answer to the question]; and
transmitting, by [a person], a text including the answer to the question associated with the question data [a person can transmit that answer to the presenter, such as verbally or in writing].
As described above, these claims recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited are one or more servers, a live speech analyzer, a generative artificial intelligence (AI) module, and a processor. However, these additional elements are nothing more than general-purpose hardware and software that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, either individually or as an ordered combination, they do not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the additional elements of one or more servers, a live speech analyzer, a generative artificial intelligence (AI) module, and a processor are nothing more than general-purpose hardware and software that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, either individually or as an ordered combination, they do not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 18, it recites the system of claim 17, wherein the one or more servers are further configured to:
transmit, through [a piece of paper], the written speech [a person can hand the presenter a written speech]; and
modify the written speech based on the analyzed presentation data [a person can modify the written speech based on the spoken speech from the presenter].
As described above, these claims recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited is a display device. However, this additional element is nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the additional elements of a display device is nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
RE claim 19, it recites the system of claim 18, wherein the modifying the written speech further comprises generating an updated speech through [a piece of paper] with modified text differentiated from the written speech [a person can generate an updated speech with marked up changes, such that the modified text is differentiated from the original written speech].
As described above, these claims recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the only additional elements recited is a display device. However, this additional element is nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not integrate the mental process into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as described above, the additional elements of a display device is nothing more than general-purpose hardware that is being used as a tool to implement the mental process. Thus, it does not amount to significantly more than the mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 13, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liao et al. (US 11,341,331, hereinafter “Liao”).
RE claims 1, 17, and 20, Liao describes a method for providing real-time presentation feedback, a system for digital presentation assistance, and an article of manufacture including a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations, the method, system, and operations comprising:
a display device (FIG. 1 – user machine 106. Also see col. 5 lns. 1-8: “The user machine 106 comprises an agent 108 which uses one or more sensors 104 to observe the user 102 during a presentation. Examples of suitable client devices 130 include but are not limited to personal computers, desktop computers, laptop computers, mobile telephones, smart phones, tablets, phablets, smart watches, wearable devices, gaming devices/computers, televisions, teleprompters, and the like.”);
an audio input device (FIG. 1 – sensor 104. Also see col. 5 lns. 8-12: “Sensors 104 can comprise any sensors that allow capturing information from and about the user 102. For example, in one embodiment sensors 104 comprise on or more microphones that can capture speech data from the user 102 as the user presents a presentation. ”); and
one or more servers electronically coupled to the display device and the audio input device (FIG. 1 – server system 112. Also see col. 4 lns. 18-22: “FIG. 1 illustrates an example architecture 100 according to some aspects of the present disclosure. A user 102 can interact with one or more applications 110 on a user machine 106 and/or one or more applications 122 that run on a server system 112 and that are available to the user.”), the one or more servers configured to:
receive, through the audio input device, audio data corresponding to a prepared presentation (col. 8 lns. 14-16: “Sensor data 502 represents data captured by one or more sensors such as previously described. As an example, input data can comprise audio data of a user giving a presentation”);
analyze, through a live speech analyzer, the audio data to form analyzed audio data (col. 8 lns. 25-29: “Sensor data 502 is typically unsuitable for analysis in its raw form. Thus, the sensor data 502 can be converted to a suitable format for analysis. This is performed by input conversion 504. For example, audio data can be converted to text using a speech to text conversion process.”);
analyze, through a generative artificial intelligence (AI) module of the one or more servers (col. 6 lns. 1-4: “Models used by the detection/analysis engines of the assistant service 126 can comprise machine learning models, rules engines, heuristics, and so forth to accomplish the detection/analysis as described herein.”), the analyzed audio data relative to stored presentation data to form an analyzed presentation data (col. 9 lns. 10-17: “The assistant service comprises one or more detection/analysis engines 508 that detect specific events that occur during the presentation. Examples of detection/analysis engines that can be included in embodiments of the present disclosure include, but are not limited to, a phrase detector, a repetition detector, an emotion detector, a facial expression detector, a gesture (or other body language) detector, and so forth.”), wherein to analyze the audio data relative to the stored presentation data includes comparing a written speech in the stored presentation data to a spoken speech in the audio data (col. 9 ln. 61 – col. 10 ln. 14: “A repetition detector detects when a user is repeating content that is part of the script. This can be a positive or negative thing and the assistant distinguishes between the two situations, as illustrated by the two examples below.
In a first example, the script comprises a set of slides that are presented to the audience during the presentation. It is universally acknowledged that simply repeating information contained on a slide is not an effective presentation technique. Thus, the repetition detector can identify when a user is repeating the information on the slide and remind the user to make changes that can include, but are not limited to, any combination of: using different language than what is contained in the script (e.g., slides); make the main points and refrain from repeating the script; and so forth.
In a second example, the script contains the text of a speech that the user should stick to. In this situation, following the script is a positive thing. The repetition detector can detect when the user is following the script and when the user strays from the script. When the latter happens, the assistant can prompt the user that they are off script and/or make suggestions on how to return to the script.”);
generate, through the generative artificial intelligence (AI) module, at least one of a recommendation and a feedback based on at least one of the analyzed audio data and the analyzed presentation data (col. 9 ln. 65 – col. 10 ln. 14: “In a first example, the script comprises a set of slides that are presented to the audience during the presentation. It is universally acknowledged that simply repeating information contained on a slide is not an effective presentation technique. Thus, the repetition detector can identify when a user is repeating the information on the slide and remind the user to make changes that can include, but are not limited to, any combination of: using different language than what is contained in the script (e.g., slides); make the main points and refrain from repeating the script; and so forth.
In a second example, the script contains the text of a speech that the user should stick to. In this situation, following the script is a positive thing. The repetition detector can detect when the user is following the script and when the user strays from the script. When the latter happens, the assistant can prompt the user that they are off script and/or make suggestions on how to return to the script.”); and
transmit, through a processor and the display device, the at least one of the recommendation and the feedback based on the analyzed presentation data, for display on a display device (col. 6 lns. 16-25: “The assistant service 126 also comprises a prompt engine 120. When an detection/analysis engine determines that an event that the detection/analysis engine watches for has occurred, the prompt engine makes a determination as to whether a real-time prompt related to the event should be displayed to the user. The prompt engine 120 is responsible for determining whether to display a real-time prompt, what the content of the prompt should be, and the timing to display the prompt to the user.”).
RE claim 2, Liao describes the method of claim 1, wherein:
the analyzing the audio data includes comparing a value of an audio parameter to a preferred range of values of the audio parameter (col. 14 lns. 13-26: “Operation 616 calculates the match metric, also referred to as a congruence metric, using a trained ML model, or a different method such as counting the words that match between the spoken phrase and corresponding script text, calculating the Levenshtein edit distance between the spoken phrase and corresponding script text, and/or so forth.
Operation 618 determines congruence between the spoken phrase and text based on a congruence criterion (or criteria). For example, in one embodiment, congruence is determined by comparing the match metric to a threshold to determine if a repetition event occurred. Typically, comparison operations can be set up to be “true” if a threshold is exceeded or if a value drops below a threshold, just by setting up the comparison differently.”), and
the feedback includes an indication that the value of the audio parameter is outside the preferred range of values in response to the audio parameter being outside the preferred range of values (col. 7 lns. 23-30: “As a representative example, suppose an embodiment of an assistant service comprises a repetition detection engine, which detects whether a user is simply repeating what is written on a slide presented to the audience. In such a situation, the prompt engine may determine to display a prompt that states “Focus on Key Points and Avoid Repeating the Slide.” Such a prompt can be displayed in the UI screen in real-time in a display area such as 306.”).
RE claim 4, Liao describes the method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting the at least one of the recommendation and the feedback is transmitted as text through the display device (col. 7 lns. 23-30: “As a representative example, suppose an embodiment of an assistant service comprises a repetition detection engine, which detects whether a user is simply repeating what is written on a slide presented to the audience. In such a situation, the prompt engine may determine to display a prompt that states “Focus on Key Points and Avoid Repeating the Slide.” Such a prompt can be displayed in the UI screen in real-time in a display area such as 306.”).
RE claim 13, Liao describes the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, by the one or more servers, a practice presentation has ended (col. 7 lns. 56-65: “Once the user has finished the presentation, a summary of events can be displayed to the user. FIG. 4 illustrates an example user interface screen according to some aspects of the present disclosure, shown generally as 400, that can display a summary to the user. In this example, the UI screen reverts back to the UI screen the user saw prior to beginning the presentation, with one or more areas for menu and/or ribbon controls, UI controls, and so forth 404, 406, an area to display slides 410 in the deck 408, and another area where a summary 412 can be displayed.”); and
generating, by the one or more servers, a set of notes based on the analyzed audio data and the analyzed presentation data (col. 7 lns. 56-65: “Once the user has finished the presentation, a summary of events can be displayed to the user. FIG. 4 illustrates an example user interface screen according to some aspects of the present disclosure, shown generally as 400, that can display a summary to the user. In this example, the UI screen reverts back to the UI screen the user saw prior to beginning the presentation, with one or more areas for menu and/or ribbon controls, UI controls, and so forth 404, 406, an area to display slides 410 in the deck 408, and another area where a summary 412 can be displayed.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Wippich et al. (US 2025/0061270).
RE claim 3, Liao doesn’t describe but Wippich describes the method of claim 2, wherein the audio parameter comprises at least one of a rate of speech, a tonal parameter, and a change in tone (¶ [0058]: “In addition to the revisions to the script, the recommendation module 320 may also provide feedback and recommendations based on presentation style, such as body language, speaking style, and non-verbal cues (e.g., hand gestures). When a user rehearses a presentation or delivers a live presentation, the presentation audio and video may be provided to the data extraction module 310 to determine the presentation style according to different dimensions (e.g., body language, facial expressions, etc.) as discussed above. Similar to the tone recommendations discussed above, recommendations for the presentation style may be based on a preferred style of an entity, a style guide, may be based on user-selected preferences, or determined from effective historical presentations. Suggestions for modifying the user's tone and presentation style may then be displayed to the user and real-time applications may be provided to the user during the presentation to provide real-time suggestions to correct the presentation style during the presentation. For example, the speed of a user's presentation (e.g., words per minute) may be compared to a preferred style to suggest a user increase or decrease the user's speaking speed at particular points of the presentation.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Liao a system and method wherein the audio parameter comprises at least one of a rate of speech, a tonal parameter, and a change in tone, as taught by Wippich, in order to track and provide feedback for aspects of the presenter’s style while presenting, which enables the user to correct for issues such as lack of clarity due to rushing through the presentation material or unintentionally presenting data in a negative light (see Wippich at [0002]-[0003]).
RE claim 16, Liao doesn’t describe but Wippich describes the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the one or more servers and through the live speech analyzer, question data associated with a topic of the prepared presentation (¶ [0009]: “Likewise, when a participant provides an interaction, such as a question, the question may be evaluated with respect to the previously predicted questions and used to surface relevant information for responding to the question in the desired way. As such, the system also provides real-time guidance and advice for predicting and responding to external questions.”);
determining, by the one or more servers and through the generative artificial intelligence (AI) module, an answer to a question associated with the question data (¶ [0067]: “In addition, the presentation monitoring module 340 may monitor external participants in the presentation to anticipate potential interactions and may identify when a participant provides an interaction. The predicted interactions for the presentation and potential responses as generated by the interaction prediction module 330 and the recommendation module 320 may be accessed by the presentation monitoring module 340 to determine when a participant matching a predicted interaction is present and if an interaction identified in the ongoing presentation is similar to or matches one of the predicted interactions. The identified interaction may be analyzed according to its topic, summary, terms, and other information to determine similarity with the predicted interactions, such that highly-similar predicted interactions are identified and may be presented to the user in real-time along with the prepared responses. These relevant predicted interactions may be presented to the user on a display with the responses such that the user may determine whether the responses that were determined when preparing the presentation may be relevant or useful in responding to the actually-presented interaction. As another example, the actually-presented interaction may be processed by the recommendation module 320 similar to the processing of the predicted interactions discussed above and enable on-the-fly generation of a response based on the presentation and the associated supplemental materials that may be displayed to the user in real-time and used by the user to craft the response. As such, the presentation monitoring module 340 may assist in both interaction handling by the user and in adjusting tone, sentiment, and other aspects of presentation style during the presentation.”); and
transmitting, by the one or more servers and through the processor, a text including the answer to the question associated with the question data (¶ [0067]: “These relevant predicted interactions may be presented to the user on a display with the responses such that the user may determine whether the responses that were determined when preparing the presentation may be relevant or useful in responding to the actually-presented interaction. As another example, the actually-presented interaction may be processed by the recommendation module 320 similar to the processing of the predicted interactions discussed above and enable on-the-fly generation of a response based on the presentation and the associated supplemental materials that may be displayed to the user in real-time and used by the user to craft the response.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Liao a system and method further comprising: receiving, by the one or more servers and through the live speech analyzer, question data associated with a topic of the prepared presentation; determining, by the one or more servers and through the generative artificial intelligence (AI) module, an answer to a question associated with the question data; and transmitting, by the one or more servers and through the processor, a text including the answer to the question associated with the question data, as taught by Wippich, in order to assist the user during a question and answer portion of a presentation, by providing relevant information and potential answer language, which improves the accuracy of the presenter’s answers (Wippich ¶ [0003]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Meredith et al. (US 6,272,461, hereinafter “Meredith”).
RE claim 6, Liao doesn’t describe but Meredith describes the method of claim 1, further comprising modifying, by the one or more servers and through the processor, a future speech text based on the analyzing the audio data relative to the presentation data associated with the prepared presentation (col. 7 lns. 56-67: “Yet another enhancement feature of the presentation support system is the ability to bypass certain material in the reference text when that material is not needed in the presentation. For example, the presenter may have certain portions of information within the reference text that will be presented to an audience in some situations and left out in other situations. During the real-time comparison of the spoken words to the reference text, the presentation support system can determine whether or not the optional material is being included or excluded from the presentation and can adjust the delivery of reference text to the presenter appropriately.”
Also see col. 7 lns. 22-38: “Another enhancement feature of the presentation support system is keyword resynchronization. Keyword resynchronization involves designating certain words within the reference text as keywords and then speaking the keywords into the speech capture system in order to locate a particular section of the reference text. For example, when the presenter strays from the reference text, a keyword can be spoken by the presenter to resynchronize the reference text back to a particular point in the presentation without requiring the presenter to flip pages or scroll through a computer screen. The keyword feature can be applied to specific situations, such as a presenter answering questions from the audience. For example, a question asked by the audience can be restated by the presenter into the speech capture system in order to trigger help from the support system. Specifically, keywords of a question can be linked to specific response material within the reference text.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Liao a system and method further comprising modifying, by the one or more servers and through the processor, a future speech text based on the analyzing the audio data relative to the presentation data associated with the prepared presentation, as taught by Meredith, in order to enable the teleprompter to automatically synchronize with the presenter, including in situations where the presenter decides to skip a section of the script or needs to jump to an earlier or later section of the script, which removes the requirement for a person to manually adjust the text displayed on the teleprompter.
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Chandran et al. (US 11,902,690, hereinafter “Chandran”).
RE claim 7, Liao doesn’t describe but Chandran describes the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting, by the one or more servers and through the processor, a written speech from the presentation data associated with the prepared presentation (col. 16 ln. 55 – col. 17 ln. 6: “The process 400 may include an operation 420 of receiving an indication to begin the presentation. The presentation user interface of the presentation and communications platform 110 may provide a button, menu selection, or other means for the user to initiate the presentation. If the presentation includes a local audience, the presentation content on a display be displayed to the live audience using via a display screen, a projector, or other means for displaying the presentation content. If the presentation includes remote participants, the presentation content may be transmitted to the respective client devices 105 of the participants via one or more media streams.”
Also see col. 6 lns. 47-57: “The presentation content, teleprompter script, and/or other content may be visible to the presenter on the client device of the presenter. The presentation content may be displayed to the live audience using via a display screen, a projector, or other means for displaying the presentation content. The teleprompter script may be presented on a display of the client device so that the presenter may refer to the teleprompter script while the presentation content only is shown to the live audience and/or sent to the client devices of the remote participants.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Liao a system and method further comprising transmitting, by the one or more servers and through the processor, a written speech from the presentation data associated with the prepared presentation, as taught by Chandran, in order to store the presentation materials on a server and then transmit the presentation materials to client devices as needed, which makes the presentation materials easily accessible to the presenter, regardless of which client device the presenter is using to access the presentation.
RE claim 10, Liao doesn’t describe but Chandran describes the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, by the one or more servers, the presentation data associated with the prepared presentation, the prepared presentation including a written speech (col. 7 lns. 48-54: “The presenter may create the presentation context on their client device 105 or another computing device and import the presentation content to the presentation and communications platform 110 to host the online presentation. The presenter may also create a teleprompter transcript that may be presented on a display of the presenter's computing device during the presentation.”); and
storing, by the one or more servers and through a presentation database, the presentation data (col. 7 ln. 66 – col. 8 ln. 4: “The presentation and communications platform 110 may also be configured to store the presentation content and the teleprompter script for the presenter and/or to enable the presenter to store the presentation in a cloud-based file hosting service, such as but not limited to Microsoft OneDrive, Microsoft SharePoint, or other such services.”).
See the rationale to combine in the rejection of claim 7, as it is equally applicable here.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Chandran and further in view of Oh (US 11,770,590, hereinafter “Oh”).
RE claim 8, Liao in view of Chandran doesn’t describe but Oh describes the method of claim 7, further comprising:
comparing, by the one or more servers and through the generative artificial intelligence (AI) module, an actual speech from the audio data to the written speech (col. 7 lns. 15-27: “In embodiments, a STT text (transcribed text) obtained from the video's audio, a pre-prepared script of the video, and combination of the two can be used text data (caption text) of the video's subtitle. For example, when creating subtitle based on the video's pre-prepared script, the technologies may correct (replace), add or remove one or more words in the script using one or more words in the STT text to reflect what is actually spoken in the video.”); and
modifying, by the one or more servers, the written speech based on the comparing (col. 7 lns. 15-27: “In embodiments, a STT text (transcribed text) obtained from the video's audio, a pre-prepared script of the video, and combination of the two can be used text data (caption text) of the video's subtitle. For example, when creating subtitle based on the video's pre-prepared script, the technologies may correct (replace), add or remove one or more words in the script using one or more words in the STT text to reflect what is actually spoken in the video.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Liao in view of Chandran a system and method further comprising:
comparing, by the one or more servers and through the generative artificial intelligence (AI) module, an actual speech from the audio data to the written speech; and modifying, by the one or more servers, the written speech based on the comparing, as taught by Oh, in order to automatically adjust the script according to what was spoken during the presentation, which enables a presenter to easily update the script based on preferred content that the presenter added on the fly during a presentation.
RE claim 18, Liao doesn’t describe but Chandran describes the system of claim 17, wherein the one or more servers are further configured to:
transmit, through the display device, the written speech (col. 16 ln. 55 – col. 17 ln. 6: “The process 400 may include an operation 420 of receiving an indication to begin the presentation. The presentation user interface of the presentation and communications platform 110 may provide a button, menu selection, or other means for the user to initiate the presentation. If the presentation includes a local audience, the presentation content on a display be displayed to the live audience using via a display screen, a projector, or other means for displaying the presentation content. If the presentation includes remote participants, the presentation content may be transmitted to the respective client devices 105 of the participants via one or more media streams.”
Also see col. 6 lns. 47-57: “The presentation content, teleprompter script, and/or other content may be visible to the presenter on the client device of the presenter. The presentation content may be displayed to the live audience using via a display screen, a projector, or other means for displaying the presentation content. The teleprompter script may be presented on a display of the client device so that the presenter may refer to the teleprompter script while the presentation content only is shown to the live audience and/or sent to the client devices of the remote participants.”).
See the rationale to combine in the rejection of claim 7, as it is equally applicable here.
Liao in view of Chandran doesn’t describe but Oh describes a system configured to:
modify the written speech based on the analyzed presentation data (col. 7 lns. 15-27: “In embodiments, a STT text (transcribed text) obtained from the video's audio, a pre-prepared script of the video, and combination of the two can be used text data (caption text) of the video's subtitle. For example, when creating subtitle based on the video's pre-prepared script, the technologies may correct (replace), add or remove one or more words in the script using one or more words in the STT text to reflect what is actually spoken in the video.”).
See the rationale to combine in the rejection of claim 8, as it is equally applicable here.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Chandran in view of Oh and further in view of Evans et al. (US 2012/0315009, hereinafter “Evans”).
RE claim 9, Liao in view of Chandran and further in view of Oh doesn’t describe but Evans describes the method of claim 8, wherein the modifying the written speech includes differentiating a modified text from original text (¶ [0131]: “A Graphical User Interface (GUI) allows a user to edit the text of any line of testimony. The purpose of this edit is to notate an error in transcription that would need to be included in an errata sheet. The system notes the original text of the line and compares it to the altered text. In commercial word processing software, this process is often referred to as "redlining." New or added text can, at the user's selection, be color coded to denote it as a change from the original text. Any combination of font characteristics can be selected by a user to denote that text that should be deleted, that text that should be altered, or that text that should be added. Font characteristics may include strikethrough, font color, font size, font, background highlighting, and similar characteristics.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Liao in view of Chandran in view of Oh a system and method wherein the modifying the written speech includes differentiating a modified text from original text, as taught by Evans, in order to enable a presenter to easily see how the original script has been modified based on the spoken presentation.
RE claim 19, Liao in view of Chandran and further in view of Oh doesn’t describe but Evans describes the system of claim 18, wherein the modifying the written speech further comprises generating an updated speech through the display device with modified text differentiated from the written speech (¶ [0131]: “A Graphical User Interface (GUI) allows a user to edit the text of any line of testimony. The purpose of this edit is to notate an error in transcription that would need to be included in an errata sheet. The system notes the original text of the line and compares it to the altered text. In commercial word processing software, this process is often referred to as "redlining." New or added text can, at the user's selection, be color coded to denote it as a change from the original text. Any combination of font characteristics can be selected by a user to denote that text that should be deleted, that text that should be altered, or that text that should be added. Font characteristics may include strikethrough, font color, font size, font, background highlighting, and similar characteristics.”).
See the rationale to combine described in the rejection of claim 9, as it is equally applicable here.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Patterson (US 2023/0186913, hereinafter “Patterson”).
RE claim 11, Liao describes the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the one or more servers, a data input selecting a presentation mode (col. 6 ln. 55 – col. 7 ln. 2: “In a representative embodiment, one UI control 206 can invoke functionality to engage sensors such as those described above to capture information about the user and/or a presentation of the user. This can occur, as previously explained, in conjunction with a user rehearsing a presentation or with a live, non-rehearsal presentation. Additionally, or alternatively, engagement of the functionality can occur when the user enters a “presentation mode” where slides are projected as part of a presentation.
Activation of the UI control 206 and/or presentation mode in the application allows the sensors (e.g., 104) to capture data such as voice and/or vision data so that the assistant service 126 can evaluate the presentation and provide feedback to the user. This is sometimes referred to herein as engaging or activating assistant functionality.”).
Liao doesn’t describe but Patterson describes the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, by the one or more servers, a data input selecting one of a training mode or a presentation mode (FIG. 10 and ¶ [0088]: “FIG. 10 shows a screen 1000 used by user 100 to begin a presentation feedback session using application 500. User 100 can launch the live presentation mode using option 1002, guided practice with option 1004, self-practice with option 1006, or review the analysis of past performances with option 1008.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Liao a system and method further comprising receiving, by the one or more servers, a data input selecting one of a training mode or a presentation mode, in order to enable the user to explicitly indicate whether the presentation is a rehearsal or a non-rehearsal, live, presentation, such that the system performs analysis that is tailored to the type of presentation being given (Patterson ¶s [0089], [0092], and [0093]).
RE claim 12, Liao describes the method of claim 11, further comprising modifying, by the one or more servers and based on the training mode or the presentation mode, an output from the one or more servers (col. 20 ln. 64 – col. 21 ln. 2: “Depending on the context, a prompt may be deemed too distracting to send or just fine to send. For example, when the user is rehearsing a presentation, the system may present more information or information of a different type than when the presentation is a “live” presentation in front of an audience.”).
Liao doesn’t describe, but Patterson describes a selection of the training mode or the presentation mode (FIG. 10 and ¶ [0088]: “FIG. 10 shows a screen 1000 used by user 100 to begin a presentation feedback session using application 500. User 100 can launch the live presentation mode using option 1002, guided practice with option 1004, self-practice with option 1006, or review the analysis of past performances with option 1008.”)
See the rationale to combine described in the rejection of claim 11, as it is equally applicable here.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Hylak et al. (US 12,374,038).
RE claim 14, Liao doesn’t describe but Hylak describes the method of claim 13, further comprising storing the set of notes in a presentation database (col. 10 lns. 20-54: “FIG. 4D illustrates the first XR environment 400 during a fourth time period subsequent to the third time period. During the fourth time period, in response to the next-slide user input and in accordance with a determination that the third slide was the final slide of the presentation, the slide window 412 is replaced with a feedback window 415. […]
For example, in FIG. 4D, the feedback window 415 indicates that the user seemed nervous, e.g., by analyzing vocal characteristics of the audio of the user, gaze, posture, movement, and/or biometrics such as heart rate, skin temperature and/or resistance, or pupil dilation. The feedback window 415 indicates that the user spoke at a decent pace, but could speak more clearly, e.g., by analyzing the speed of speech and performing speech recognition. The feedback window 415 indicates that the user mentioned most of the points in the presentation, e.g., by performing speech recognition and comparing the recognized speech to the text of the slides.
The feedback window 415 includes an objective score based on the audio of the user and/or other data collected during the rehearsal time period. Further, the feedback window 415 requests a subjective score from the user to indicate how the user would score their performance of the rehearsal of the presentation. In various implementations, the user provides the subjective score via user input, such as a vocal response.
For the rehearsal of the presentation, the electronic device stores the audio of the user and/or other data collected during the rehearsal time period and further stores the objective score and the subjective score.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in Liao a system and method further comprising storing the set of notes in a presentation database, as taught by Hylak, in order to enable the user to access and review the summary of events for a particular presentation at a later time, such that the user can remember and avoid the identified problems before beginning their next presentation.
RE claim 15, Liao doesn’t describe but Hylak describes the method of claim 14, wherein the presentation data associated with the prepared presentation includes the set of notes (col. 10 lns. 42-49: “The feedback window 415 includes an objective score based on the audio of the user and/or other data collected during the rehearsal time period. Further, the feedback window 415 requests a subjective score from the user to indicate how the user would score their performance of the rehearsal of the presentation. In various implementations, the user provides the subjective score via user input, such as a vocal response.
For the rehearsal of the presentation, the electronic device stores the audio of the user and/or other data collected during the rehearsal time period and further stores the objective score and the subjective score.”).
See the rationale to combine described in the rejection of claim 14, as it is equally applicable here.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure – see additional references cited on PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel C Washburn whose telephone number is (571)272-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
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.
/DANIEL C WASHBURN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2657
Prosecution Insights