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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 26 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 26 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under U.S.C. 102 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 K M et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0166641) in view of Pogorelik. The new rejection is detailed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 recites the limitation “wherein the memory includes further instructions executable by the processor to”. It appears this should recite “wherein the memory includes further instructions executable by the one or more processors to”.
Claim 16, 17, 19, and 20 recite the limitation “comprising instructions that are executable by a processor to”. It appears this should recite “comprising instructions that are executable by the processor to”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K M et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2022/0166641), hereinafter KM, in view of Pogorelik (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0279859), hereinafter Pogorelik.
Regarding claim 1, KM shows
A method comprising: (Fig. 5; [0037]; [0059]; i.e. A method performed by a client device including processor, memory and instructions to perform the method.)
joining, by a client device, ([0022]; lines 1-3; Fig. 2, 107) a virtual conference using a client application (i.e. video conferencing application) executed by the client device, (Fig. 2; [0023], lines 1-2) the virtual conference being attended by a participant, (Fig. 2, 104; i.e. person) the client application providing a graphical user interface (GUI), (Fig. 2, 106; Fig. 1, 106) wherein the GUI is presented in the foreground on the client device; (Fig. 2, 106) ([0016], lines 1-4; i.e. The person is actively participating in the video conference. Therefore, they have inherently joined the video conference.)
receiving, by the client device during the virtual conference, (Fig. 1; [0016]; i.e. audio is received from another participant)
determining, by the client device, if the transcript (i.e. text of audio data) includes a phrase (i.e. keywords) associated with the participant; and ([0023])
in response to determining that the transcript includes the phrase associated with the participant, outputting, by the client device while the GUI is presented in the foreground, a notification to the participant on the GUI. ([0023]; Fig. 2)
However, fails to show
receiving, by the client device during the virtual conference, a transcript audio of the virtual conference from a server;
Pogorelik shows
receiving, by the client device (Fig. 5, 5010; [0035]; [0029]; i.e. collaboration device) during the virtual conference, (i.e. collaboration session) a transcript of the virtual conference from a server;(Fig. 5, 5050; i.e. collaboration server); (i.e. The transcript is created by the collaboration server. ([0037], lines 15-17) The monitoring of the transcript is performed by collaboration application running on the collaboration device. ([0039]) Therefore, the client device inherently receives the transcript from the server.)
determining, by the client device, if the transcript includes a phrase (i.e. keywords/keyphrases) associated with the participant; and ([0038-0039])
in response to determining that the transcript includes the phrase associated with the participant, outputting, by the client device, a notification to the participant ([0033])
Pogorelik and KM are considered analogous art because they involve collaboration sessions. KM shows a client device which transcribes audio into text to identify keywords to notify the participant. Pogorelik shows that a server that provides the session may do the transcribing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KM to incorporate the teachings of Pogorelik wherein receiving, by the client device during the virtual conference, a transcript audio of the virtual conference from a server. Doing so save processing resources at the client device.
Regarding claim 4, KM in view of Pogorelik shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. KM in view of Pogorelik further shows
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
selecting, by the client device, a subset of words (i.e. sentence) of the transcript that includes the phrase, (i.e. keywords) the subset of words providing context to the phrase; (KM: [0023]; [0031]; [0016])
modifying, by the client device, the subset of words to be highlighted, boldened, italicized, underlined, changed font size, changed font, or combinations thereof; and (KM: [0031-0032]; i.e. The sentence is removed from the transcript and highlighted on a screen for viewing.)
outputting, by the client device, the subset of words of the transcript that includes the phrase on the GUI to the participant. (KM: [0031-0032]; Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 7, KM in view of Pogorelik shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. KM in view of Pogorelik further shows
The method of claim 1, wherein the notification includes an audio response, a visual response, (i.e. a notification is displayed to the user) a tactile response, a haptic response, or a combination thereof. (KM: Fig. 2; [0022]; [0016])
Regarding claim 8, this device claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 1 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 9, this device claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 4 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 14, this device claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 7 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 15, this medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 1 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 16, this medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 4 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KM in view of Pogorelik in view of Bagley et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0100986).
Regarding claim 2, KM in view of Pogorelik shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. KM in view of Pogorelik further shows
The method of claim 1, wherein outputting, by the client device, the notification to the participant on the GUI further comprises:
outputting, by the client device, a message to the participant, the message notifying the participant that the participant was mentioned in the virtual conference; (KM: [0022]; [0017])
However, KM in view of Pogorelik fails to show
determining, by the client device, if the participant has performed an interaction with the client application within a time threshold; and
in response to determining if the participant has not performed the interaction within the time threshold, outputting, by the client device, a second message.
Bagley shows
wherein outputting, by the client device, the notification to the participant on the GUI further comprises: ([0042], lines 1-10)
outputting, by the client device, a message to the participant, the message notifying the participant that the participant was mentioned in the virtual conference; ([0047]; [0053], lines 1-5)
determining, by the client device, if the participant has performed an interaction with the client application within a time threshold; and ([0053])
in response to determining if the participant has not performed the interaction within the time threshold, outputting, by the client device, a second message. ([0054-0055])
Bagley and KM in view of Pogorelik are considered analogous art because they involve providing notifications to a participant to engage in a collaboration. KM shows that visual notifications may be provided to the participant. Bagley shows what may be performed when the participant ignores or misses the notification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KM in view of Pogorelik to incorporate the teachings of Bagley wherein outputting, by the client device, the notification to the participant on the GUI further comprises: outputting, by the client device, a message to the participant, the message notifying the participant that the participant was mentioned in the virtual conference, determining, by the client device, if the participant has performed an interaction with the client application within a time threshold, and in response to determining if the participant has not performed the interaction within the time threshold, outputting, by the client device, a second message. Doing so insures that the participant engages in the conference when they are being mentioned in the conference.
Regarding claim 3, KM in view of Pogorelik in view of Bagley shows all of the features with respect to claim 2 as outlined above. KM in view of Pogorelik in view of Bagley further shows
The method of claim 2, wherein the message includes highlighted text associated with the participant; and (KM: [0031])
wherein the second message includes the highlighted (i.e. KM shows that the text may include the keywords highlighted. [0031]) text and an audio response, a visual response, a tactile response, a haptic response, or a combination thereof. (Bagley: [0055]; i.e. The second notification may be a combination of notification types, such as visual and auditory/tactile.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KM in view of Pogorelik to incorporate the teachings of Bagley wherein the message includes visual response associated with the participant and wherein the second message includes the visual response and an audio response, a visual response, a tactile response, a haptic response, or a combination thereof for the same motivation as detailed in claim 2.
Regarding claim 10, this device claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 2 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 11, this device claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 3 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 17, this medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 2 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 18, this medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 3 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KM in view of Pogorelik in view of Chawla et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,516,105), hereinafter Chawla.
Regarding claim 5, KM in view of Pogorelik shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, KM in view of Pogorelik fails to show
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying, by the client device, a state of the participant;
determining, by the client device, if the state of the participant meets an engagement threshold, the state representing an active state or an inactive state of the participant; and
in response to determining if the state of the participant meets the engagement threshold, outputting, by the client device, an alert, wherein the alert includes an audio response, a visual response, a tactile response, a haptic response, or a combination thereof.
Chawla shows
identifying, by the client device, (Column 3, line 66 – Column 4, line 4; i.e. the system is located within the electronic/client device) a state (i.e. level of participation) of the participant; (Column 5, lines 29-38)
determining, by the client device, if the state of the participant meets an engagement threshold, the state representing an active state or an inactive state of the participant; and (Column 5, lines 29-38)
in response to determining if the state of the participant meets the engagement threshold, outputting, by the client device, an alert, wherein the alert includes an audio response, a visual response, a tactile response, a haptic response, or a combination thereof. (Column 7, line 66 – Column 8, line 6)
Chawla and KM in view of Pogorelik are considered analogous art because they involve collaboration sessions. KM shows that a user may not be paying attention during the session. ([0002]) Chawla shows that an inactive participant may be drawn back to a session. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KM in view of Pogorelik to incorporate the teachings of Chawla wherein identifying, by the client device, a state of the participant;, determining, by the client device, if the state of the participant meets an engagement threshold, the state representing an active state or an inactive state of the participant, and in response to determining if the state of the participant meets the engagement threshold, outputting, by the client device, an alert, wherein the alert includes an audio response, a visual response, a tactile response, a haptic response, or a combination thereof. Doing so provides that the system may determine when a user has been inactive in a session to identify when to generate a notification.
Regarding claim 12, this device claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 5 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 19, this medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 5 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KM in view of Pogorelik in view of Morris et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2023/0410058), hereinafter Morris.
Regarding claim 6, KM in view of Pogorelik shows all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. However, KM in view of Pogorelik fails to show
The method of claim 1, wherein joining the virtual conference using the client application executed by the client device further comprises:
receiving, by the client device, an input setting from the participant using the GUI of the client application;
generating, by the client device, a parameter based on the input setting; and
wherein determining if the transcript includes the phrase associated with the participant further comprises: determining, by the client device, if the parameter is associated with the phrase.
Morris shows
wherein joining the virtual conference using the client application executed by the client device further comprises: ([0046]; [0042], lines 1-6)
receiving, by the client device, an input setting (i.e. keyword) from the participant using the GUI of the client application; ([0042])
generating, by the client device, a parameter (i.e. keyword added to list) based on the input setting; and ([0042])
wherein determining if the transcript includes the phrase associated with the participant further comprises: determining, by the client device, if the parameter is associated with the phrase. ([0031])
Morris and KM in view of Pogorelik are considered analogous art because they involve virtual meetings. KM shows that a participant may be notified of keywords identified in a collaboration session. Morris shows that such keywords may be entered into a GUI. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KM in view of Pogorelik to incorporate the teachings of Morris wherein joining the virtual conference using the client application executed by the client device further comprises: receiving, by the client device, an input setting from the participant using the GUI of the client application, generating, by the client device, a parameter based on the input setting, and wherein determining if the transcript includes the phrase associated with the participant further comprises: determining, by the client device, if the parameter is associated with the phrase. Doing so provides the participant with an input means to enter the keywords that they are interested in.
Regarding claim 13, this device claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 6 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Regarding claim 20, this medium claim comprises limitations substantially the same as those detailed in claim 6 above and is accordingly rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE H JAHNIGE whose telephone number is (571)272-8450. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry can be reached at (571) 272-8328. 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.
/CAROLINE H JAHNIGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451