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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final action in response to amendment filed on 09/17/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s argument directed to 101 rejection is persuasive. The 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument directed to 102/103 rejection are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues Donner’s presence detection is not interactivity information comprises … conversational involvement, balance of contribution, an individual affect or a group affect. Examiner respectfully disagree as Donner also teaches using ratings provided by peers (e.g. other attendees around a user or another user who just had conversation with the user, the user can even rate another user as well. See 18:62-67 and 23:9-22). This rating is used for re-allocation. Therefore, Donner teaches the limitation. These ratings can be either an individual affect (e.g., an attendee’s own rating) or a group affect (e.g., an attendee’s rating to a audience of a section).
Examiner further notes Reese also discuss monitoring conversational involvement. Therefore, Applicant may want to consider further limit the “interactivity information” to distinguish the invention from the prior arts.
Applicant then argues Byers does not disclose chairs/table to transform the disposition of the set of users from the groups to the set of cohorts. Examiner respectfully disagree as layout is a disposition of the set of users. Examiner recommends further amend “the disposition” to distinguish from Byers.
Lastly, Applicant argues there is no articulated reasoning with a rationale to combine the references. Examiner respectfully disagree. Here, examiner provided a rationale to flexible arranging furniture to make the chairs/tables movable on its own. Donner’s event has chairs and there is no physical limitations regarding Donner’s chair, which would make the combination with Byers’ movable chair/table relatively straightforward. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that there is no articulated reason is not persuasive in view of the level of one ordinary skilled in the art. Lastly, examiner notes that making something portable or movable would not make a claimed device distinguish from prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 V. A. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Objection
Claim 4 and 15 are objected because they appear to have the incorrect status identifier. These claims should be canceled because they’ve been incorporated into claims 1 and 13.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Donner (US 7562051) in view of Byers (US 20180299864)
As per claim 1, Donner discloses an electronic device, comprising:
circuitry (see Fig. 38-39 central computer having CPU) configured to:
receive sensor information from a set of sensors associated with a location including a set of users corresponding to a plurality of groups (see at least Donner, 18:62-67 and 23:9-22, regarding ratings received by peers or conversation participants and ratings are used for reallocation.);
determine interactivity information associated with each group of the plurality of groups, based on the received sensor information, wherein the interactivity information comprises a measurement of at least one of a conversational involvement, a balance of contribution, an individual affect, or a qroup affect (see at least Donner, 22:25-47, register upon entry using Bluetooth or infrared. Examiner notes user’s presence is an interactivity information);
receive a set of user profiles associated with the set of users (see at least Donner, 21:36 – 22:47, system arrange meeting/dating based on profile information);
create a set of cohorts from the plurality of groups, based on the determined interactivity information and the received set of user profiles (see at least Donner, 21:36 – 22:47, system arrange meeting/dating among groups of user based on confirmed presence (interactivity) and received profile information); and
control a set of actuators associated with the location to transform a disposition of the set of users from the plurality of groups to the set of cohorts (see at least Donner, 21:36 - 22:47, message is transmitted to patrons regarding match. Examiner notes patron’s devices are associated with location).
Donner does not but Byers teaches
wherein the set of actuators comprises at least one of a chair or a table (0057, chair assigned from one room to another, chair subsequently moves without human interaction); and
control the at least one of the chair or the table to transform the disposition of the set of users from the plurality of groups to the set of cohorts, wherein the control of the chair or table is confiqured to move the chair or table from a first position associated with the plurality of groups to a second position associated with the set of cohorts (0057, chair assigned from one room to another, chair subsequently moves without human interaction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Byer’s chair with Donner’s seat reassignment dating service for the purpose of flexibly rearrange seatings as needed.
As per claim 2, Donner further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the set of sensors includes at least one of: an infrared sensor, a radio frequency sensor, a proximity sensor, a photoelectric sensor, a touch sensor, a photodetector, a camera, an audio-input device, a pressure sensor, a thermistor, a position sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a strain sensor, or a weight sensors (see at least Donner, 22:25-47, register upon entry using Bluetooth or infrared. Examiner notes user’s presence is an interactivity information).
As per claim 3, Donner further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the set of sensors is associated to the set of actuators, and the set of actuators correspond to at least one of a robot, an audio-output device, or a scheduler associated with the location (see at least Donner, 21:36-22:47, patron’s device that receives seat assignment is an scheduler).
As per claim 4, Donner discloses the electronic device according to claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose the circuitry is further configured to:
control the chair to transform the disposition of the set of users from the plurality of groups to the set of cohorts, wherein the control of the chair is configured to move the chair from a first position associated with the plurality of groups to a second position associated with the set of cohorts.
Byers teaches the limitation (0057, a chair is assigned from one room to another, chair subsequently moves without human interaction.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Byer’s chair with Donner’s seat reassignment dating service for the purpose of flexibly rearrange seatings as needed.
As per claim 5, Donner discloses the electronic device according to claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose the circuitry is further configured to:
control the table to transform the disposition of the set of users from the plurality of groups to the set of cohorts, wherein the control of the table is configured to move the table from a first position associated with the plurality of groups to a second position associated with the set of cohorts (0057, a chair is assigned from one room to another, chair subsequently moves without human interaction. See 0041 same setup can be applied to table).
Byers teaches the limitation (0057, a chair is assigned from one room to another, chair subsequently moves without human interaction.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Byer’s table with Donner’s seat reassignment dating service for the purpose of flexibly rearrange seatings as needed.
As per claim 6, Donner further discloses the electronic device according to claim 3, the circuitry is further configured to:
control the
Donner does not explicitly disclose the device that renders a recommendation/media content is a robot. Byers teaches a robot capable of displaying information (0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Byer’s robotic display with Donner’s personal device for the purpose of allowing information being distributed around the venue.
As per claim 7, Donner further discloses the electronic device according to claim 3, the circuitry is further configured to:
control the audio-output device to render at least one of audio content or background noises to the set of users, wherein the control of the audio-output device is configured to transform the disposition of the set of users from the plurality of groups to the set of cohorts (see at least Donner, 92:39-51, standard text-to-voice is used to communicate offers of new seat to patron).
As per claim 8, Donner further discloses the electronic device according to claim 3, the circuitry is further configured to:
control the scheduler to determine a schedule for an activity associated with the set of users at the location, based on the set of cohorts, wherein the activity corresponds to at least one of: a serving of a course of a meal, a speech, or a game (see at least Donner, 21:36-22:47, patron’s original seat at a game is reserved while patron is reassigned to a different seat for dating application).
As per claim 9, Donner further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the received sensor information corresponds to at least one of: a gesture, a posture, a speech, a gaze, an action, or a facial orientation, associated with the set of users (see at least Donner, 22:25-47, infrared or Bluetooth to transmit information in an area related to user’s arrival).
As per claim 11, Donner further discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein each user profile of the set of user profiles includes at least one of: an area of interest of a user, demographic information of the user, beliefs of the user, aversions of the user, or skills of the user (see at least Donner, 21:36 – 22:47, system arrange meeting/dating among groups of user based on confirmed presence (interactivity) and received profile information. Examiner notes these dating service participants have interest in dating/meeting new people).
Claims 13-20 contains limitations substantially similar to claims 1-8 and are rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Donner (US 7562051) in view of Byers (US 20180299864), further in view of Kothuri (US 20160042648)
As per claim 10, Donner does not but Kothuri teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
apply a machine learning (ML) model on the received sensor information, wherein the determination of the interactivity information is further based on the application of the ML model (see at least Fig. 2 for in-person sensor monitoring and see 0090 regarding machine learning model used to provide feedback).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Kothuri’s monitoring facial expression of in-person meeting in speed dating with Donner’s dating service for the purpose of improving experience for participants (Kothuri: 0018, 0075).
Claim(s) 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Donner (US 7562051) in view of Byers (US 20180299864), further in view of Reece (US 20210264900)
As per claim 12, Donner does not but Reece teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
determine a time for interruption of an ongoing conversation between users of a group of the plurality of groups, wherein the determination of the time for interruption is based on the received sensor information; and control the set of actuators to interrupt the ongoing conversation between the users of the group at the determined time (see at least Reece, 0034 regarding in-person conversation monitoring. See 0207-0208, that time spent listening can be used to calculate score that triggers new coaching pairing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Reece’s new pairing triggering with Donner’s dating service for the purpose of finding better matches for participants.
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 GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights