DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
This communication is in response to communications received on 9/3/25. Claim(s) 1, 2-12, 13, and 19 is/are amended, claim(s) none is/are cancelled, claim(s) none is/are new, and applicant does not provide any information on where support for the amendments can be found in the instant specification. Therefore, Claims 1-20 is/are pending and have been addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 9/3/2025, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 112 for claim(s) 1-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner respectfully withdraws rejections under 35 USC 112 for claim(s) 1-18.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 9/3/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 for claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 101 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 14-19.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims here are not like those the Federal Circuit found patent eligible in Enfish because the claimed steps are a process that qualifies as an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool, rather than being directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities.
The claims here are not like those the Federal Circuit found patent eligible in DDR because applicant’s claim(s) here is/are not solving an internet-centric problem specifically arising in the realm of computers or computer networks nor is/are the claimed solution(s) necessarily rooted in computer technology.
The claims here are not like those the Federal Circuit found patent eligible in Bascom because the claims do not have an inventive concept found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements.
Regarding Diehr, the claims as a whole are not directed to the algorithm’s matching, as the claims are directed to messaging and alerting where one of the messages is based on the matching.
Applicant is relying on 2106.05(d) “well understood, routine, and conventional” however Examiner is relying on 2106.05(f) “apply it.” Examiner relied on “apply it” because of item (2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process of 2106.05(f).
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 9/3/25, with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 for claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as far as they apply to the amended 103 rejection(s) below.
Applicant respectfully traversed the rejection on pg. 20-43.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees because in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The applicant has not a) explained why each reference does not teach the limitations in question, b) provided an explanation regarding what the applicant believes each does teach, nor c) provided an explanation why the teaching of each reference is not each limitation in question.
Furthermore, Applicants assertion that the conclusion of obviousness is based on improper hindsight is unavailing. “Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971).
Additionally, applicant is reminded that "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See MPEP § 2141.03. The Examiner further respectfully submits that "The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record." See MPEP § 2145 etseq. Therefore, Applicant's Arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 are moot and/or unpersuasive.
Thus, the argument(s) are unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1350, 94 USPQ2d at 1171; Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that generic claim language appearing in ipsis verbis in the original specification did not satisfy the written description requirement because it failed to support the scope of the genus claimed)”. Additionally, original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349, 94 USPQ2d at 1171.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Representative claim(s) 1, 2, 13, and 19 recite(s)
“determining which of the available actors are predictive actors by executing a probabilistic neural network algorithm trained on actor characteristic models specific to the casting requirements of the selected production, the algorithm further configured to account for non-traditional gender casting considerations,
generating, in response to receiving the audition response from the selected actor, a secure electronic ticket encoded with the unique code, the secure electronic ticket linked to both the selected production and the selected actor and configured for validation by a venue device to control physical entry to the audition appointment to the appointment by the selected predictive” and
scanning, by a venue device comprising a secure scanner, the electronic ticket displayed on the second mobile computing device, and validating the ticket against the unique code embedded in the electronic invitation to confirm actor identity and production before granting physical entry (claim 2).
Examiner notes the bolded portion of the representative claims above is new matter. Initially, Examiner notes the bolded portion recites “a probabilistic neural network algorithm trained on actor characteristic models specific to the casting requirements of the selected production” and “the secure electronic ticket linked to both the selected production and the selected actor and configured for validation by a venue device to control physical entry to the audition appointment to the appointment by the selected predictive” which does not appear to be supported by the originally filed disclosure. Examiner notes the closest portions of the original disclosure include [0006-0007, 0009-0010, 0024, 0040] only states
[0009-0010] “The operations also include comparing, by the machine intelligence application, data of available actors to a respective actor characteristics model for the selected production. In addition, the operations include transmitting to the first mobile device, in response to determining predictive actors by using probabilistic neural network algorithms.” as there is no mention of training;
[0006, 0009-0010, 0024, 0040] ticket provides entry to the appointment not that ticket is linked to production and action nor configured for any action;
[0006-0007, 0009-0010, 0024, 0040] ticket is validated by first computing device as there is no mention of a venue device;
[0006] there are only two devices a first mobile device of a selecting user and a second mobile device of the various actors.
None of these portions however disclose the above bolded claim language. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim(s) 2-12, 14-18, and 20 is/are rejected because they depend on claim(s) 1, 2, 13, and 19.
Claim(s) 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Representative claim(s) 7-12 recite(s)
“wherein the invitation response comprises a push notification alert automatically displayed on the first mobile computing device, the alert linked to the unique code to identify the responding actor and production” (claim 7),
“wherein the probabilistic neural network algorithms are programmed to account for non-traditional gender casting, underrepresented ethnic backgrounds, and age-diverse role matching when determining which of the available actors are predicted actors” (claim 8),
“wherein the operations further comprise enabling bi-directional secure messaging between the first and second mobile computing devices, the messaging authenticated by the unique code associated with the electronic invitation” (claim 9),
“wherein the operations further comprise generating a synchronized audition calendar displayed on the first mobile computing device, the calendar automatically updated when an invitation response or audition decision is received” (claim 10),
“wherein the operations further comprise generating structured actor resume using artificial intelligence in response to verbal input from one of the available actors, the resume stored in the data of available actors and formatted for display in the actor profile” (claim 11),
“wherein the operations further comprise generating, using artificial intelligence, a draft audition script for the selected production, the draft script configured for rehearsal or delivery by the selected actor” (claim 12).
Examiner notes the bolded portion of the representative claims above is new matter. Initially, Examiner notes the bolded portion recites
a) “generated by an AI model prompted by the stored feedback data, the AI model trained to provide constructive audition feedback”,
b) “wherein the probabilistic neural network algorithms are programmed to account for underrepresented ethnic backgrounds and age-diverse role matching when determining which of the available actors are predicted actors”,
c) “secure messaging, the messaging authenticated by the unique code associated with the electronic invitation”,
d) “generating a synchronized audition calendar, the calendar automatically updated when an invitation response or audition decision is received”,
e) “generating structured actor resume using artificial intelligence, the resume formatted for display in the actor profile” and
f) “generating, using artificial intelligence, a draft audition script, the draft script configured for rehearsal or delivery by the selected actor”
which does not appear to be supported by the originally filed disclosure. Examiner notes the closest portions of the original disclosure include [0008, 0034-0035, 0038] only states
[0008] “The probabilistic neural network algorithms are programmed to include non-traditional gender castings in determining which of the available actors are predicted actors.” which does not include ethnic background or age diverse data,
[0008] “The operations sending and receiving user messaging” which does not include secure messaging nor the messaging authenticated by the unique code associated with the electronic invitation,
[0008, 0041, 0045, 0048] “generating a calendar to display on the first mobile computing device of each audition appointment” which does not include generating a synchronized audition calendar, the calendar automatically updated when an invitation response or audition decision is received,
[0008] “The operations may also include generating an audition for the selected production using artificial intelligence.” which is not generating a draft audition script, the draft script configured for rehearsal or delivery by the selected actor,
[0034-0035] “the alert linked to the unique code to identify the responding actor and production” which does not mention a connection between the alert and unique code, and
[0038] “The machine intelligence can also be used by the available actors to create a resume to reduce the tedious process of inputting extensive information manually.” which does not include a structured resume nor formatted resume.
None of these portions however disclose the above bolded claim language. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected. Representative claim(s) 3-6 recite(s)
“wherein the operations further comprise displaying, on the first mobile computing device, a plurality of actor profiles associated with the predictive actors, each actor profile including demographic information, prior production history, and AI-generated matching scores relative to the actor characteristic model of the selected production a plurality (claim 3),
wherein the operations further comprise prompting, via the graphical user interface, the user to tag the pictures of the predictive actors into a first pass category or a second fail category after the audition, and capturing structured feedback data, including text or audio annotations, for storage in the memory (claim 4),
wherein the operations further comprise transmitting, to the second mobile computing device of the selected predictive actor, an electronic audition decision corresponding to the tagged category, the electronic audition decision including a personalized textual message generated by an AI model prompted by the stored feedback data, the AI model trained to provide constructive audition feedback (claim 5),
wherein the operations further comprise receiving from the second mobile device of the selected predictive actor an audition response comprising at least one of a textual acknowledgment, an audio reply, or a follow-up scheduling request. (claim 6)”.
Examiner notes the bolded portion of the representative claims above is new matter. Initially, Examiner notes the bolded portion recites
“each actor profile including demographic information, prior production history, and AI-generated matching scores relative to the actor characteristic model of the selected production a plurality”,
“capturing structured feedback data, including text or audio annotations, for storage in the memory”,
“generated by an AI model prompted by the stored feedback data, the AI model trained to provide constructive audition feedback”, and
“an audition response comprising at least one of a textual acknowledgment, an audio reply, or a follow-up scheduling request”
which does not appear to be supported by the originally filed disclosure. Examiner notes the closest portions of the original disclosure include [0007] only states
[0007] “The operations may include displaying a plurality of profiles associated with the predictive actors on the first mobile computing device” which only states display profiles not specific items of the profile, and
[0007] “In addition, the operations may include transmitting, to the second mobile computing device corresponding to the at least one selected predictive actor, an electronic audition decision corresponding to the tagged category, the electronic audition decision having a textual message generated using artificial intelligence prompted by the feedback from the audition. The operations may include receiving from the second mobile device of the selected predictive actor an audition response to the audition decision.” as there is no mention of capturing the feedback, storing the feedback, training AI, or the type of response to audition decision.
None of these portions however disclose the above bolded claim language. Appropriate correction/clarification is required. Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected because they depend on claim(s) 3, 4, and 5.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The limitation(s) below for representative claim(s) 1, 13, and 19 that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is directed to casting and audition methods.
Step 1: The claim(s) as drafted, is/are a process (claim(s) 13-18 recites a series of steps) and system (claim(s) 1-12 and 19-20 recites a series of components).
Step 2A – Prong 1: The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) (emphasis added):
Claim 13: transmitting to a first mobile computing device a plurality of productions stored in a memory in response to receiving, by a machine intelligence application running on one or more processors, a request to the user;
prompting, via a graphical user interface on the first mobile computing device, the user on the first, the user to select one of the productions from the plurality of productions;
receiving from the first mobile computing device the selected production;
comparing, by the machine intelligence application, data of available actors to a respective actor characteristics model for the selected production;
determining which of the available actors are predictive actors by executing a probabilistic neural network algorithm trained on actor characteristic models specific to the casting requirements of the selected production, the algorithm further configured to account for non-traditional gender casting considerations, and
transmitting to the first mobile computing device pictures of the predictive actors corresponding to the selected production and stored in the memory;
prompting, via the graphical user interface on the user on the first mobile computing device, the user to select at least one of the predictive actors;
transmitting, to a second mobile computing device corresponding to the at least one selected predictive actor, an electronic invitation having a unique code for an appointment to an audition for the selected production;
receiving from the second mobile computing device of the selected predictive actor an invitation response to the electronic invitation;
generating, in response to receiving the audition response from the selected actor a secure electronic ticket encoded with the unique code, the secure electronic ticket linked to both the selected production and the selected actor and configured for validation by a venue device to control physical entry to the audition appointment to the appointment by the selected predictive; and
transmitting the electronic ticket to the second mobile computing device of the selected predictive actor.
Claim 1 and 19: the same analysis as claim(s) 13 and additionally: transmitting to the first mobile device, in response to determining predictive actors, pictures of the predictive actors corresponding to the selected production and stored in the memory.
Dependent claims 2-12, 14-18, and 20 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claim(s) 1, 13, and 19 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s) of: .
The identified limitations of the independent and dependent claims above fall well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts of:
a method of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, or business relations) because the invention is directed to economic and/or business relationships as they are associated with casting and auditions of actors for projects.
Step 2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The additional elements encompassed by the abstract idea include mobile computing devices, memory, processors, machine intelligence, graphical user interface, model, probabilistic neural network algorithm, venue device (claim(s) 1, 13, 19), non-transitory machine-readable medium (claim(s) 19, mobile computing devices (claims 2-7, 9-10, 14-18, 20), graphical user interface (claim(s) 4, 9, 16, 20), artificial intelligence (claim(s) 5, 11-12, 17), and probabilistic neural network algorithm (claim(s) 8).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 fails to describe:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine – see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0025]) invoked as a tool and/or general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 are merely (as additionally noted by instant specification [0025]) invoked as a tool and/or a general purpose computer to apply instructions of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and/or mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application and thus similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons as set forth above (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
It has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, 12, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (US 2006/0026079 A1) in view of Newman et al. (US 2019/0385124 A1), Minsky published March 25, 2019 (IDS dated 1/30/2024), and Brighthire published August 29, 2023 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 13, and 19, Fox teaches a computer implemented casting director messaging and alert method, the method comprising {system comprising:
a memory;
one or more processors coupled to the memory and configured to execute computer-readable programming instructions to perform operations comprising: - claim 1}
{non-transitory machine-readable medium having stored thereon machine-readable instructions executable to cause operations comprising: - claim 19} [see at least [0008, 0035] computer system that includes access by buyer and seller computers]:
transmitting to a first computing device a plurality of productions stored in the memory in response to receiving, by a application running on one or more processors, a request from a user;
prompting, via a graphical user interface on the first computing device, the user to select one of the productions from the plurality of productions;
receiving from the first computing device the selected production;
casting considerations, and
transmitting to the first mobile device data;
prompting, via the graphical user interface on the first computing device, the user to select at least one the actors;
transmitting, to a second computing device corresponding to the selected actor, an electronic invitation having a unique code for an appointment to an audition for the selected production;
receiving from the second device of the selected actor an invitation response to the electronic invitation;
generating, in response to receiving the audition response from the selected actor, a secure electronic ticket encoded with the unique code, the secure electronic ticket linked to both the selected production and the selected actor and configured for validation by a venue device to control physical entry to the audition appointment to the appointment by the selected predictive; and
transmitting the electronic ticket to the second computing device of the selected actor [for the limitations above,
Examiner notes as noted by the 112 rejection above, the generating step is not supported by the specification and is interpreted as generating, in response to receiving the audition response from the selected actor, a secure electronic ticket encoded with the unique code, the secure electronic ticket to the appointment by the selected predictive,
then see at least, 1st transmit & prompt steps: [0008, 0035] computer system that includes access by buyer and seller computers; [0003] “In the following description, “Buyers” refers to Casting Directors, Producers, Studios and the like, “Sellers” refers to Agents and Managers, and “Talent” refers to Actors, Models, Writers, Directors, etc. Talent can be represented by a Seller or can be unrepresented where they have limited but direct access to Buyers”; Fig. 23 and [0046-0047] the system allows a user to search for a project “Select Project”;
1st receive, casting, 2nd transmit, & prompt steps : Figs. 23 and [0046-0047] in response to the user selection of a project, the system provides project data such as the Build module; Fig. 25 and [0047-0049, 0053] the Build module provides (sends) an actor list the project to a first user and receive selection of users via thumbnail (photo view) from the first user for inclusion in a call sheet for the project, where selection is done by click the save button as noted in Fig. 25 and where the user is not already selected; [0036-0037] storage of actor data; [0113] casting considerations “It then displays the title of the selected project, and each role or character in the project and the gender, and age range for the role.”;
3rd transmit step: Fig. 26 and [0060-0063] send request (with unique code) to selected actor(s); [0043] “Communication between all Buyer, Seller and Talent members based upon permissions and type”; [0003] “in some cases, unrepresented Actors submit information about themselves.”;
2nd receive, generate, and 4th transmit step: [0008] “iv) said Buyer sending said preliminary schedule to Sellers representing said Talent by electronic mail as an audition request; and v) said Buyer updating said schedule according to the responses received from said Sellers … the audition times are re-assigned after the preliminary schedule request has been sent and any affected Seller is notified electronically of the change”; Figs. 26-27 and [0069, 0060-0063, 0003] send updated schedule (with unique code) to selected actor(s) and “in some cases, unrepresented Actors submit information about themselves.”].
Fox teaches candidate list selection but doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however, in the field pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned such as candidate selection recommendation, Newman discloses
a first mobile computing device, by a machine intelligence application running on one or more processors,;
comparing, by the machine intelligence application, data of available candidates to a respective candidates characteristics model for the job;
original limitation: determining which of the available actors are predictive actors by executing a probabilistic neural network algorithm trained on actor characteristic models specific to the casting requirements of the selected production, the algorithm further configured to account for non-traditional gender casting considerations,
Newman discloses: determining which of the available actors are predictive actors by executing a probabilistic neural network algorithm trained on actor characteristic models specific to the casting requirements of the selected production, the algorithm further configured to account for data considerations,
transmitting to the first mobile device data of the predictive actors corresponding to the job and stored in the memory {the first mobile device, in response to determining the predictive candidates, data of the predictive candidates corresponding to the job and stored in the memory – claim 1 and 13};
at least one the predictive actors;
predictive actor;
predictive actor;
predictive actor; and
predictive actor [as noted by the 112 rejection above, the original determining step is not supported by the specification and is interpreted as determining which of the available actors are predictive actors by executing a probabilistic neural network algorithm, the algorithm further configured to account for non-traditional gender casting considerations,
then see at least Fig. 1 and [0029, 0032] “In the depicted example, server computer 104 and server computer 106 connect to network 102 along with storage unit 108. In addition, client computers include client computer 110, client computer 112, and client computer 114. Client computer 110, client computer 112, and client computer 114 connected to network 102. … The illustration of network data processing system 100 is not meant to limit the manner in which other illustrative embodiments can be implemented. For example, other client computers may be used, in addition to or in place of client computer 110, client computer 112, and client computer 114, as depicted in FIG. 1. For example, client computer 110, client computer 112, and client computer 114 may include a tablet computer, a laptop computer, a bus with a vehicle computer, and other suitable types of clients.”;
[0041] “Computer system 201 is connected to internal databases 262, external data sources 264, and devices 266. Internal databases 262 may comprise all or part of database 300 in FIG. 3. External data sources 264 may comprise news feeds and other sources of information regarding economic conditions in a geographic area of interest to a recruiter that may be used.”;
Fig. 3 and [0043] “Database 300 comprises connections 310, employees 320, employment opportunities 318,” and Fig. 3 shows item 324 PROFILES as a sub part of 320 EMPLOYEES;
[0005] “A machine intelligence application running on a processor unit, responsive to receiving a job description for an employment opportunity, parses a predicted employee cache for one or more predicted employees having employment data matching the job description. Responsive to parsing the predicted employee cache and finding one or more matches for one or more predicted employees, the method delivers, … The predicted employee is an employee that the machine intelligence application has determined to be interested in a job change and to whom a job change interest score has been assigned in the predicted employee cache.”;
[0037] “Machine intelligence 218 comprises … a neural network, … or other suitable types of systems”;
[0063-0064] further define Machine intelligence comprises a neural network or other suitable types of systems of ([0037]) to include “probabilistic neural network algorithms running on the processor unit”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fox with Newman to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Newman. Doing so would help improve Fox’s (Fox [0003-0007] ) process of organizing the schedule for auditions by providing an improved candidate list [see at least Newman [0002-0004] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Fox and b) Newman and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Fox in view of Newman teaches a project, casting, and auditions but doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however, in the field pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned such as user selection via swiping and scheduling via mobile app, Minsky discloses
pictures of the actors [see at least [pg 2-3] “Script is the only app which is multi-sided, providing a service for both actors and directors on the same platform.”, “She knew from her own experience of casting actors that directors make quick decisions on who to audition almost entirely based on what an actor looks like, in the same way that Tinder users swipe left or right based on someone’s profile picture.”, “browse through a curated selection of actor headshots (for directors) or audition opportunities ordered by date (for actors)”, and “Just like Tinder, you can click a profile or audition opportunity to see more information, decide “yes” or “no” by swiping,”; [pg 5] “ “If I know someone who could be good enough for a role, maybe not the best but I know they are available and I work well with them, I tend to call that person rather than engaging in a long search. Time equals money.” ”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fox in view of Newman with Minsky to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Minsky. Doing so would help improve Fox in view of Newman’s (Fox [0003-0007] ) process of organizing the schedule for auditions by providing “direct access to a larger pool of candidates who might not know about certain projects” which creates “a wider network both nationally and internationally” [see at least Minsky [pg 5-6] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Fox in view of Newman and b) Minsky and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Fox in view of Newman and Minsky teaches a project, casting, and auditions but doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however, in the field pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned such as user selection, Brighthire discloses
non-traditional gender hiring considerations [see at least [pg 3] “Reducing bias with AI … Some tools can aggregate interview data and help you learn from previous interviews, too. BrightHire’s Equity Insights provides important insights to your team, including how the number of questions asked or how much candidates talk in interviews varies between male and female candidates or between recruiters and interviewers. Are you running the same style of interview for each of your candidates, or are you changing how you approach the conversation depending on who the candidate is? These are important, game-changing insights that AI can help you unlock.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fox in view of Newman and Minsky with Brighthire to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Brighthire. Doing so would help improve modified Fox’s (Fox [0003-0007] ) process of interview response/decision [see at least Brighthire [pg 1-3, 5].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) Fox in view of Newman and Minsky and b) Brighthire and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8 (currently amended), modified Fox teaches the system of claim 1, as well as determining which of the available actors are predicted actors.
Modified Fox doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Newman discloses
wherein the probabilistic neural network algorithms are programmed to include data when determining which of the available actors are predicted actors [see at least [0005] “A machine intelligence application running on a processor unit, responsive to receiving a job description for an employment opportunity, parses a predicted employee cache for one or more predicted employees having employment data matching the job description. Responsive to parsing the predicted employee cache and finding one or more matches for one or more predicted employees, the method delivers, … The predicted employee is an employee that the machine intelligence application has determined to be interested in a job change and to whom a job change interest score has been assigned in the predicted employee cache.”;
[0037] “Machine intelligence 218 comprises … a neural network, … or other suitable types of systems”;
[0063-0064] further define Machine intelligence comprises a neural network or other suitable types of systems of ([0037]) to include “probabilistic neural network algorithms running on the processor unit”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Fox with Newman to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Newman. Doing so would help improve modified Fox’s (Fox [0003-0007] ) process of organizing the schedule for auditions by providing an improved candidate list [see at least Newman [0002-0004] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Fox and b) Newman and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Modified Fox doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Brighthire discloses
non-traditional gender casting, underrepresented ethnic backgrounds, and age-diverse role matching when determining an answer [as noted by the 112 rejection claim 8 is not supported by the specification and is interpreted as non-traditional gender casting matching when determining,
then see at least [pg 3] “Reducing bias with AI … Some tools can aggregate interview data and help you learn from previous interviews, too. BrightHire’s Equity Insights provides important insights to your team, including how the number of questions asked or how much candidates talk in interviews varies between male and female candidates or between recruiters and interviewers. Are you running the same style of interview for each of your candidates, or are you changing how you approach the conversation depending on who the candidate is? These are important, game-changing insights that AI can help you unlock.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Fox with Brighthire to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Brighthire. Doing so would help improve modified Fox’s (Fox [0003-0007] ) process of interview response/decision [see at least Brighthire [pg 1-3, 5].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Fox and b) Brighthire and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9 (currently amended), modified Fox teaches the system of Claim 1, as well as the first and second mobile computing devices
and Fox teaches wherein the operations further comprise enabling bi-directional secure messaging between the first and second mobile computing devices, the messaging authenticated by the unique code associated with the electronic invitation [as noted by the 112 rejection claim 9 is not supported by the specification and is interpreted as enabling bi-directional messaging between the first and second mobile computing devices,
then see at least [0034] email functionality for the system; [0043] “Communication between all Buyer, Seller and Talent members based upon permissions and type”; Fig. 26 and [0008, 0060, 0065] first user (buyer) sending and receiving messages from actors “iv) said Buyer sending said preliminary schedule to Sellers representing said Talent by electronic mail as an audition request; and v) said Buyer updating said schedule according to the responses received from said Sellers”; [0003] “in some cases, unrepresented Actors submit information about themselves.”;].
Regarding claim 10 (currently amended), modified Fox teaches the system of Claim 1, as well as first mobile computing device
and Fox teaches wherein the operations further comprise generating a synchronized audition calendar displayed on the first computing device, the calendar automatically updated when an invitation response or audition decision is received [as noted by the 112 rejection claim 10 is not supported by the specification and is interpreted as generating a calendar displayed on the first computing device,
then see at least Figs. 26-27 and [0048, 0060, 0069] the buyer views a calendar (schedule) of each appointment/call back].
Regarding claim 12 (currently amended), modified Fox teaches the system of claim 1, as well as an audition for the selected production.
Modified Fox (Fox) teaches an audition decision but doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however, in the field pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned such as an interview, Brighthire discloses
wherein the operations further comprise generating, using artificial intelligence, a draft interview script for the selected production, the draft script configured for rehearsal or delivery by the selected actor [as noted by the 112 rejection claim 12 is not supported by the specification and is interpreted as generating, using artificial intelligence, an interview,
then see at least [pg 1-2] “6 Key Use Cases for AI in Recruiting … Capture interview notes”;
[pg 2-3] “Other ways AI can help increase hiring efficiency include: … Coming up with interview questions”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Fox with Brighthire to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Brighthire. Doing so would help improve modified Fox’s (Fox [0003-0007] ) process of interview response/decision [see at least Brighthire [pg 1-3, 5].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Fox and b) Brighthire and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox in view of Newman, Minsky, and Brighthire as applied to claim(s) 1 and 13 above and further in view of and Coady et al. (US 2014/0039945 A1).
Regarding claim 2 and 14, modified Fox teaches the method of Claim 13.
Modified Fox teaches conducting an audition (event) but doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however, in the field pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned such as event verification, Coady discloses
further comprising scanning the electronic ticket displayed on the second mobile computing device to determine if it matches the electronic invitation when presented to the first mobile computing device at the audition {scanning, by a venue device comprising a secure scanner, the electronic ticket displayed on the second mobile computing device, and validating the ticket against the unique code embedded in the electronic invitation to confirm actor identity and production before granting physical entry - claim 2} [as noted by the 112 rejection there is not support for claim 2 and it is interpreted as scanning the electronic ticket displayed on the second mobile computing device, and validating the ticket,
then see at least Figs. 1 and 2A and [0008] checkin system 160 (host device) verifies attendee device which displays invitation ticket; [0015] each ticket has unique code].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Fox with Coady to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Coady. Doing so would help improve modified Fox’s (Fox) by further defining event type as in person, provides verification of attendee of in person event, and these are additions because they will ensure auditions will occur as needed for the production schedule [see at least Coady Figs. 1 and 2A and [0008,0015] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Fox and b) Coady and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3 and 15, modified Fox teaches the method of Claim 14, as well as the predictive actors and first mobile computing device
and Fox teaches further comprising displaying a plurality of profiles associated with the actors on the first computing device {wherein the operations further comprise displaying, on the first mobile computing device, a plurality of actor profiles associated with the predictive actors, each actor profile including demographic information, prior production history, and AI-generated matching scores relative to the actor characteristic model of the selected production a plurality - claim 3} [as noted by the 112 rejection there is not support for claim 3 and is interpreted as wherein the operations further comprise displaying, on the first mobile computing device, a plurality of actor profiles associated with the predictive actors,
then see at least Fig. 27 and [0069, 0071] display actors to choose for call back and select actors for callback].
Regarding claim 4 and 16 (currently amended), modified Fox teaches the method of Claim 15, as well as first mobile computing device
and Fox teaches further comprising prompting, via the graphical user interface on the first computing device, the user to tag the into a first pass category or a second fail category after the audition and provide feedback from the audition {wherein the operations further comprise prompting, via the graphical user interface, the user to tag the pictures of the predictive actors into a first pass category or a second fail category after the audition, and capturing structured feedback data, including text or audio annotations, for storage in the memory - claim 4} [as noted by the 112 rejection there is not support for claim 4 and is interpreted as wherein the operations further comprise prompting, via the graphical user interface, the user to tag the pictures of the predictive actors into a first pass category or a second fail category after the audition,
then see at least Fig. 27 and [0069, 0071] display for selection actors (who auditioned) for call back and select actors for callback;
[0095] “The Buyer or Casting Facility uses the invention to record the seen order of the Actors as they come in for their auditions. … The Buyer can also enter notes regarding the Actor that they wish to tell the executive or viewers of the videos, plus they can make their “picks” or “choices” to indicate to the executives which actor they would select for the role or for a second audition”].
Modified Fox (Fox) teaches a project, casting, and auditions but doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however, in the field pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned such as user selection via swiping and scheduling via mobile app, Minsky discloses
the pictures [see at least [pg 2-3] “Script is the only app which is multi-sided, providing a service for both actors and directors on the same platform.”, “She knew from her own experience of casting actors that directors make quick decisions on who to audition almost entirely based on what an actor looks like, in the same way that Tinder users swipe left or right based on someone’s profile picture.”, “browse through a curated selection of actor headshots (for directors) or audition opportunities ordered by date (for actors)”, and “Just like Tinder, you can click a profile or audition opportunity to see more information, decide “yes” or “no” by swiping,”; [pg 5] “ “If I know someone who could be good enough for a role, maybe not the best but I know they are available and I work well with them, I tend to call that person rather than engaging in a long search. Time equals money.” ”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified with Minsky to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Minsky. Doing so would help improve modified Fox’s (Fox [0003-0007] ) process of organizing the schedule for auditions by providing “direct access to a larger pool of candidates who might not know about certain projects” which creates “a wider network both nationally and internationally” [see at least Minsky [pg 5-6] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Fox and b) Minsky and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5-6, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox in view of Newman, Minsky, Brighthire, and Coady as applied to claim(s) 4 and 19.
Regarding claim 5 and 17, modified Fox teaches the method of Claim 16, as well as second mobile computing device
and Fox teaches further comprising transmitting, to the second computing device corresponding to the selected actor, an electronic audition decision corresponding to the tagged category, the electronic audition decision having a textual message prompted by the audition {wherein the operations further comprise transmitting, to the second mobile computing device of the selected predictive actor, an electronic audition decision corresponding to the tagged category, the electronic audition decision including a personalized textual message - claim 5} [see at least claims 10-11 and Fig. 27 and [0069, 0071] display for user a selection of actors (who auditioned) for call back, user select actors for callback thus creating a call back, a schedule for callbacks;
[0008] user notifies actor of schedule (such as a callback schedule) and thus notifies users of audition decision “iv) said Buyer sending said preliminary schedule to Sellers representing said Talent by electronic mail as an audition request; and v) said Buyer updating said schedule according to the responses received from said Sellers … the audition times are re-assigned after the preliminary schedule request has been sent and any affected Seller is notified electronically of the change”;
[0068] “d. Sending Audition Requests— The invention will go through the schedule and for each Actor selected by the Buyer the invention will send an audition request message; and an email to the Seller containing information about the audition including the audition date, location, role, time and all the attachments selected by the Buyer. The invention will also mark the audition request as sent.”].
Modified Fox (Fox) teaches an audition decision but doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however, in the field pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned such as interview response/decision, Brighthire discloses
a textual message generated using artificial intelligence prompted by the feedback from the interview {personalized textual message generated by an AI model prompted by the stored feedback data, the AI model trained to provide constructive audition feedback - claim 5} [as noted by the 112 rejection claim 5 is not supported by the instant specification and is interpreted as personalized textual message generated by an AI model prompted by the feedback data,
then see at least [pg 1-2] “6 Key Use Cases for AI in Recruiting … Capture interview notes”;
[pg 2-3] “Other ways AI can help increase hiring efficiency include: … Compiling notes and key takeaways from candidate interviews”;
[pg 5] personalized such as based on notes and key takeaways from candidate interviews “Auto-generated, personalized outreach powered by AI makes writing emails easier and less time-intensive.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Fox with Brighthire to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Brighthire. Doing so would help improve modified Fox’s (Fox [0003-0007] ) process of interview response/decision [see at least Brighthire [pg 1-3, 5].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Fox and b) Brighthire and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6 and 18, modified Fox teaches the method of Claim 17, as well as second mobile computing device
and Fox teaches further comprising receiving from the second device of the selected actor an audition response to the audition decision {wherein the operations further comprise receiving from the second mobile device of the selected predictive actor an audition response comprising at least one of a textual acknowledgment, an audio reply, or a follow-up scheduling request - claim 6} [as noted by the 112 rejection there is not support in the specification for the claim and it is interpreted as wherein the operations further comprise receiving from the second mobile device of the selected predictive actor an audition response,
then see at least claims 10-11 and Fig. 27 and [0069, 0071] display for user a selection of actors (who auditioned) for call back, user select actors for callback thus creating a call back, a schedule for callbacks;
[0008] user notifies actor of schedule (such as a callback schedule) and thus notifies users of audition decision “iv) said Buyer sending said preliminary schedule to Sellers representing said Talent by electronic mail as an audition request; and v) said Buyer updating said schedule according to the responses received from said Sellers … the audition times are re-assigned after the preliminary schedule request has been sent and any affected Seller is notified electronically of the change”].
Regarding claim(s) 20, the claim(s) recite(s) analogous limitations to claim(s) 2-6 and 14-18 above and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox in view of Newman, Minsky, and Brighthire as applied to claim(s) 1 above and further in view of Boyd et al. (US 2012/0311460 A1)
Regarding claim 7 (currently amended), modified Fox teaches the system of Claim 1.
Modified Fox (Fox) teaches a project, casting, and auditions but doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach however, in the field pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned such as message alerts, Boyd discloses
wherein the invitation response comprises a push notification alert automatically displayed on the first mobile computing device, the alert linked to the unique code to identify the responding actor and production [as noted in the 112 rejection there is not support for the limitation and it is interpreted as wherein the invitation response comprises a alert automatically displayed on the first mobile computing device,
then see at least [0047] notify meeting organizer of meeting invitee response].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Fox with Boyd to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Boyd. Doing so would help improve modified Fox’s (see at least Fox [0008, 0098]) meeting and messaging system by providing alerts which will help ensure the project occurs as required which is similar to this assurance given from scheduling audition [see at least Boyd [0047] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Fox and b) Boyd and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox in view of Newman, Minsky, and Brighthire as applied to claim(s) 1 above and further in view of Apple published July 17, 2023 (reference U on the Notice of References Cited).
Regarding claim 11 (currently amended), modified Fox teaches the system of claim 1, as well as available actors.
Modified Fox doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Newman discloses
original limitation: wherein the operations further comprise generating a structured actor resume using artificial intelligence in response to verbal input from one of the available actors, the resume stored in the data of available actors and formatted for display in the actor profile
Newman teaches: wherein the operations further comprise a structured actor resume from one of the available actors, the resume stored in the data of available actors [as noted in the 112 rejection the original claim is not supported by the specification and interpreted as wherein the operations further comprise generating a resume using artificial intelligence in response to verbal input from one of the available actors, the resume stored in the data of available actors,
then see at least [0041] “Computer system 201 is connected to internal databases 262, external data sources 264, and devices 266. Internal databases 262 may comprise all or part of database 300 in FIG. 3. External data sources 264 may comprise news feeds and other sources of information regarding economic conditions in a geographic area of interest to a recruiter that may be used.”;
Fig. 3 and [0043] “Database 300 comprises connections 310, employees 320, employment opportunities 318,” and Fig. 3 shows item 324 PROFILES as a sub part of 320 EMPLOYEES;
[0005] “A machine intelligence application running on a processor unit, responsive to receiving a job description for an employment opportunity, parses a predicted employee cache for one or more predicted employees having employment data matching the job description. Responsive to parsing the predicted employee cache and finding one or more matches for one or more predicted employees, the method delivers, … The predicted employee is an employee that the machine intelligence application has determined to be interested in a job change and to whom a job change interest score has been assigned in the predicted employee cache.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Fox with Newman to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Newman. Doing so would help improve modified Fox’s (Fox [0003-0007] ) process of organizing the schedule for auditions by providing an improved candidate list [see at least Newman [0002-0004] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Fox and b) Newman and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Modified Fox doesn’t/don’t explicitly teach but Apple discloses
wherein the operations further comprise generating a summary using artificial intelligence in response to verbal input from one of the user [see at least [pg 4] “AI-Powered Transcribe Voice to Text Accuracy
Our AI boasts an unrivaled precision for transcribing voice to text, trained on an impressive 680K hours of multilingual and multitask data. Experience flawless transcriptions each time you use SoundType AI.
…
Engaging Transcribe Audio to Text Experience
Engage with your transcriptions in unique ways. Ask questions about your audio or video, and our AI will generate responses from the content, enhancing your transcribe experience.
Summarized Transcriptions
Receive the key points and highlights of your audio in a concise, understandable format with SoundType AIs summary feature.
Comprehensive Voice/Video to Text Transcription
Whether its uploading an audio or video file, recording within the app, or importing from YouTube, SoundType AI transcribes it into text for straightforward analysis.”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Fox with Apple to include the limitation(s) above as disclosed by Apple. Doing so would help improve modified Fox’s (Fox [0003-0007] ) process of organizing the schedule for auditions by providing an improved candidate list [see at least Apple [pg 4] ].
Furthermore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior arts of a) modified Fox and b) Apple and c) one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
When responding to the office action, any new claims and/or limitations should be accompanied by a reference as to where the new claims and/or limitations are supported in the original disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WEBB whose telephone number is (313)446-6615. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10-3.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624