Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 13, 17, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites on line 4 “the one or more processors to::” which should be --the one or more processors:-- to remove the double colon.
Claims 13 and 20 recite on the last line “determine if the parameter is associated…” should be --determining if the parameter is associated…-- for grammatical consistency.
Claim 17 recites on line 7 “determine if the participant has performed…” should be –determine if the participant has not performed-- to align with Claims 2 and 10.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-9, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K M et al. “KM” (US 2022/0166641) in view of Pogorelik (US 2017/0279859) and further in view of Religa et al. “Religa” (US 2023/0261890).
Regarding claim 1, KM disclose 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, a transcript audio of the virtual conference from a server; (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, KM fails to show receiving, by the client device during the virtual conference, a transcript audio of the virtual conference from a server; generating a summary corresponding to a context of the phrase associated with the participant in the transcript; and outputting, by the client device while the GUI is presented in the foreground, a notification to the participant on the GUI, the notification comprising the summary.
In an analogous art, Pogorelik discloses:
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.); and
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]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KM to include receiving, by the client device during the virtual conference, a transcript audio of the virtual conference from a server as taught by Pogorelik for the benefit of saving processing resources at the client device.
KM and Pogorelik fail to disclose generating a summary corresponding to a context of the phrase associated with the participant in the transcript; and outputting, by the client device while the GUI is presented in the foreground, a notification to the participant on the GUI, the notification comprising the summary.
In an analogous art, Religa teaches generating a summary (344 – fig. 3C; i.e., additional information that enables the user to quickly gain an understanding of the state of the meeting) corresponding to a context of the phrase (i.e., trigger event such as participant name, name of project, topic of interest, meeting stage, etc. see ¶0045-0046) associated with the participant in the transcript (i.e., real-time monitoring of transcriptions of audio input related to the meeting; see ¶ 0019 & 0049) (i.e., Fig. 3C displays a GUI screen 300C of an ongoing meeting where GUI screen 300C may display a UI element 344 for providing notification to the user. The UI element 344 includes information about the triggering event (e.g., your name was mentioned). Furthermore, the UI element 344 may include additional information that enables the user to quickly gain an understanding of the state of the meeting and as such be able to effectively engage with other meeting attendees.) (Fig. 3C; ¶ 0046, 0056 & 0060); and
in response to determining that the transcript includes the phrase associated with the participant (¶ 0046), outputting, by the client device (130 – fig. 1A) while the GUI (ongoing meeting 300C – fig. 3C) is presented in the foreground, a notification (344 – fig 3C) to the participant on the GUI, the notification comprising the summary (i.e., Fig. 3C displays a GUI screen 300C of an ongoing meeting where GUI screen 300C may display a UI element 344 for providing notification to the user. The UI element 344 may include additional information that enables the user to quickly gain an understanding of the state of the meeting and as such be able to effectively engage with other meeting attendees.) (Fig. 3C; ¶ 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KM and Pogorelik to include generating a summary corresponding to a context of the phrase associated with the participant in the transcript; and outputting, by the client device while the GUI is presented in the foreground, a notification to the participant on the GUI, the notification comprising the summary as taught by Religa for the benefit of enabling the user to quickly gain an understanding of the state of the meeting and as such be able to effectively engage with other meeting attendees.
Regarding claim 4, KM, Pogorelik, and Religa disclose, in particular KM teaches
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, Pogorelik, and Religa disclose, in particular KM teaches 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.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 10, 11, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KM in view of Pogorelik and further in view of Religa as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Bagley et al. “Bagley” (US 2007/0100986).
Regarding claim 2, KM, Pogorelik, and Religa, in particular KM teaches 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, Pogorelik, and Religa fail to disclose 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.
In an analogous art, 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])
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, Pogorelik, and Religa to include 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 as taught by Bagley for the benefit of ensuring that the participant engages in the conference when they are being mentioned in the conference.
Regarding claim 3, KM, Pogorelik, Religa, and Bagley disclose
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, Pogorelik, and Religa 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.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KM in view of Pogorelik and further in view of Religa as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Chawla et al. “Chawla” (USPN 8,516,105), hereinafter Chawla.
Regarding claim 5, KM, Pogorelik, and Religa fail to disclose 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.
In an analogous art, Chawla discloses:
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)
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 modify KM, Pogorelik, and Religa to include 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 for the benefit of preventing participants from falling behind during video conferences.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KM in view of Pogorelik and further in view of Religa as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Morris et al. “Morris” (US 2023/0410058).
Regarding claim 6, KM, Pogorelik, and Religa fail to disclose 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.
In an analogous art, Morris discloses:
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])
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 modify KM, Pogorelik, and Religa to include 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 as taught by Morris for the benefit of preventing delays in online meetings where a participant is expected to speak or contribute.
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
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 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 CHRIS PARRY whose telephone number is (571)272-8328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:00 am to 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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 571-272-1667. 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.
CHRIS PARRY
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights