DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendment filed on 11/25/25 has been entered. Claims 1-19 have been amended. Claim 20 has been canceled. New claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-19 and 21 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 8, 15 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 8/25/25 (which contains 103 items) fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(a) because it lacks the appropriate size fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(v). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 15-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 9-10, 17-18 of copending Application No. 18/412343. Although, the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 8, 15 of the instant application are identical with the exception of the narrower claim limitation of "train an artificial intelligence (AI) model based on a plurality of dashboards related…” as claimed in copending application claims 1, 9, 17. Copending application has narrower claim limitation of “train an artificial intelligence (AI) model based on a plurality of dashboards related…”. Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 of instant application correspond to dependent claims 2, 10 and 18 of copending application.
The claimed invention in the instant application is fully disclosed in the copending application and it is broader than the claimed invention in the copending application No. 18/412343. No new invention or new improvement is being claimed in the instant application. Applicant is now attempting to claim broadly that which had been previously described in more detail in the claims of the copending application (In re Van Ornum, 214 USPQ 761 CCPA 1982).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/481,125. Although, the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1, 8, 15 of the instant application are identical with the exception of the narrower claim limitation of "display a report…” as claimed in copending application claims 1, 8, 15. Copending application has narrower claim limitation of “display a report …”. Dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 of instant application correspond to dependent claims 2, 10 and 18 of copending application.
The claimed invention in the instant application is fully disclosed in the copending application and it is broader than the claimed invention in the copending application No. 18/481,125. No new invention or new improvement is being claimed in the instant application. Applicant is now attempting to claim broadly that which had been previously described in more detail in the claims of the copending application (In re Van Ornum, 214 USPQ 761 CCPA 1982).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200403817 to Daredia et al. (“Daredia”).
As to claim 1, 8 and 15, Daredia discloses an apparatus, a method and a computer-readable storage medium, the apparatus comprising: a memory [Fig. 7: 704, paragraph 0141]; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory [Fig. 7: 702, paragraph 0141], the processor configured to: display a dashboard on a device on the call, wherein the dashboard comprises a plurality of content items corresponding to a plurality of topics, respectively, [paragraph 0084, Fig. 4A-4B], capture communication content from the call, determine that participants of the call have shifted from the first topic to a second topic [paragraph 0089: “As the content management system 102 transcribes the audio data and analyzes the materials associated with the meeting, the content management system 102 can determine when the meeting presenter or another user covers a topic from the meeting agenda 404 and moves to a subsequent topic”], by executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model on the communication content[paragraphs 0041, 0066];
and automatically rearrange the dashboard during the call to visually deemphasize the first content item and visually emphasize a second content item corresponding to the second topic being discussed [paragraph 0089: ”the content management system 102 can highlight a currently or most recently discussed topic within the document region 412a using a highlight box 416 to indicate that the current topic has changed…” (e.g. visually emphasize a second content item corresponding to the second topic “Top salesman last month”), And remove highlight box 414 (e.g. deemphasize the first content item) from first topic (“Next month’s goals”), also see paragraphs 0023, 0031].
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, Daredia discloses wherein the processor is configured to receive audio from the call during the call, convert the audio into text based on execution of a speech-to-text converter, and determine the focus of the call has shifted to the second topic based on keywords identified within the text [paragraphs 0086, 0089: “As the content management system 102 transcribes the audio data and analyzes the materials associated with the meeting, the content management system 102 can determine when the meeting presenter or another user covers a topic from the meeting agenda 404 and moves to a subsequent topic…”, also see paragraphs 0100, 0103].
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, Daredia discloses wherein the processor is configured to identify the plurality of topics from a meeting summary stored in a software application and compare keywords in the received discussion data to keywords in the meeting summary [paragraph 0089: “content management system 102 analyzes the materials associated with the meeting (e.g., the meeting agenda 404 in the document region 412a)…”, further meeting agenda 404 contains topics (Fig. 4a), also see paragraphs 0100, 0103].
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, Daredia discloses wherein the processor is configured to move the first content from its initial location to a different location on the dashboard and present content of the second content item at the initial location on the dashboard [Figs. 4B-4C, also see paragraph 0089: “the content management system 102 can highlight a currently or most recently discussed topic within the document region 412a using a highlight box 416 to indicate that the current topic has changed, as in FIGS. 4B and 4C…”].
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, Daredia discloses wherein the processor is configured to instantiate new content that corresponds to the second topic on the dashboard at a different location than the first content item on the dashboard [Figs. 4B-4C, also see paragraph 0089].
As to claims 6 and 13, Daredia discloses wherein the processor is configured to identify the plurality of topics to be discussed on the call and display a plurality of graphic modules of content for the plurality of topics, respectively, on the dashboard simultaneously [Figs. 4A-4C, paragraphs 0076-0096].
As to claims 7 and 14, Daredia discloses wherein the processor is configured to rearrange the plurality of graphic modules of content for the plurality of topics based on the execution of the AI model on the second topic [Figs. 4A-4C, paragraphs 0076-0096].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200403817 to Daredia et al. (“Daredia”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180039634 to Goldstein et al. (“Goldstein”).
As to claim 21, Daredia discloses the apparatus of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1].
Daredia does not expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to at least one of change a size, a shape, and a location of the second content item to visually emphasize the second content item on the dashboard.
In the same or similar field of invention, Goldstein discloses wherein the processor is configured to at least one of change a size [Fig. 3-4: 322, 324: size (bigger font) of second topic “Goals of Project X” is changed], a shape [Fig. 3-4: 322, 324: font/shape (all caps) of second topic “Goals of Project X” is changed], and a location [Fig. 3-4: 322, 324: location of second topic “Goals of Project X” is changed ] of the second content item to visually emphasize the second content item on the dashboard [Goldstein Figs. 3-4, paragraphs 0050-0052].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Daredia to have feature of wherein the processor is configured to at least one of change a size, a shape, and a location of the second content item to visually emphasize the second content item on the dashboard as taught by Goldstein. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide features for automatically facilitating knowledge sharing using information collected during meetings [Goldstein Abstract].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-12 of applicant’s remark, the applicant argues the following:
“However, Daredia fails to anticipate or render obvious the features of Claim 1, because Daredia fails to describe or suggest, “determine that participants of the call have shifted from the first topic to a second topic by executing an artificial intelligence (AI) model on the communication content; and automatically rearrange the dashboard during the call to visually deemphasize the first content item and visually emphasize a second content item corresponding to the second topic being discussed."”
“Daredia describes that a content management system can analyze a meeting agenda for topics to be discussed during a call. The system can receive audio from the call and "highlight" the identified topic "within the document region".“
“In contrast, in Claim 1, the system detects a "shift" in conversation from a first topic to a second topic. In other words, the system detects both a previous topic of conversation and a current or "new" topic of conversation. This is not described by Daredia”
“Furthermore, Claim 1 also describes rearranging a dashboard based on the "shift" in discussion topics by both visually deemphasizing the first content item, and visually emphasizing the second content item. In contrast, Daredia mentions highlighting a portion of a document based on a topic being discussed, which has nothing to do with the previous topic being discussed, nor deemphasizing content”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant's arguments for the following reasons: Daredia clearly detects “shift" in conversation from a first topic to a second topic [paragraph 0089]. Daredia discloses as the content management system 102 transcribes the audio data and analyzes the materials associated with the meeting, the content management system 102 can determine when the meeting presenter or another user covers a topic from the meeting agenda 404 and moves to a subsequent topic [paragraph 0089]. This is same as detecting “shift” in conversation from a first topic to a second topic. Further, Daredia also teaches rearranging a dashboard based on the "shift" in discussion topics by both visually deemphasizing the first content item, and visually emphasizing the second content item [paragraph 0089]. As per Daredia, the content management system 102 can highlight a currently or most recently discussed topic within the document region 412a using a highlight box 416 to indicate that the current topic has changed…” (e.g. visually emphasize a second content item corresponding to the second topic), And remove highlight box (e.g. deemphasize the first content item) from previous topic 414 (“Next month’s goals”) [paragraph 0089]. This is same as rearranging a dashboard [changing highlight box from previous topic to a new topic] based on the "shift" in discussion topics by both visually deemphasizing the first content item [no highlight box 414 around first topic “Next month’s goals”], and visually emphasizing the second content item [highlight box 416 around second topic “Top salesman last month”]. Thus, Daredia clearly discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTIM G SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-5214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANTIM G SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693