CTNF 18/462,737 CTNF 91856 DETAILED ACTION This correspondence is responsive to the application filed on September 7, 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the case, with claims 1, 11 and 20 in independent form. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Summary of Detailed Action Claims 1-20 are subject to restriction between Group I claims 1-19 and Group II claim 20. Applicant’s representative elected Group I claims 1-19 via telephone conversation. Claims 7, 9, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 6-7 and 11, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Overstreet in view of Dave et al . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 8-10, 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Overstreet in view of Dave et al., and further in view of Dharmaji . Claims 2-4 and 12-14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the abstract idea rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are overcome. Election/Restriction 08-08 AIA Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claim s 1-19 , drawn to accessing questions, generating new questions, grouping related questions, questions processed using machine learning model and natural language processing, questions with a number of votes , classified in G06N20/00, G06F40/20, G06F40/30, H04N7/155 . II. Claim 20 , drawn to auction, bidding, comparing bids, determining winning bid user, provide link to bid winning user, prompting bid winning user , classified in G06Q30/08, G06Q30/02, G06Q10/40 . 08-13 AIA The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as accessing questions, generating new questions, grouping questions, using machine learning and natural language processing to assign scores to questions based on how related each question is to one another, filtering questions, sorting questions, and transmitting new questions. See MPEP § 806.05(d). The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: The groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different CPC groups or subgroups, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Such burden is not limited to searching or finding the prior art for the patentably distinct groups, but also includes the examination burden required to evaluate any relevant prior art for these groups, and when applicable, formulate distinct rejections for these species. 18-22 AIA Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. 08-23 AIA During a telephone conversation with Pina Campagna on March 9, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I , claim s 1-19 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. 08-23-02 AIA Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites the limitation generate a new question based on “the sub-group of questions” that includes a largest quantity of questions to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that it appears that claim 7 should depend from claim 6 for proper antecedent basis. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 depends from claim 6 and recites the limitation to receive a number of votes “for each group of the plurality of groups of questions.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that claim 6 recites group the plurality of question into a plurality of “sub-groups of questions…”. Claim 10 depends from claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 9. Claim 10 further recites to generate a new question based on “the group of questions …” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 10 depends from claim 9 which depends from claim 6 that recites to group the plurality of question into a plurality of “sub-groups” of questions. Claims 9 and 10 recite terminology of groups that conflicts with the claim 6 subgroups, from which both claims 9 and 10, ither directly or indirectly, and both claims 9 and 10 are therefore indefinite. The examiner suggests amending claims 9 and 10 to recite sub-groups, or amend claim 6 to recite groups. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17 depends from claim 11 and recites the limitation generate a new question based on “the group of questions” that includes a largest quantity of questions to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that it appears that claim 17 should depend from claim 16 for proper antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter at a high, general level to generate a new question based on the plurality of questions and determine if the sporting event has ended based on the end time, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-19 recite one of the four statutory categories of patent able subject matter and belong to the statutory class(es) of a process (method claims 11-19), a machine (system/apparatus claims 1-10), and an article of manufacture (non-transitory computer readable media claims). Claim 1 recites a system, thus a machine and one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter. However, claim 1 further recites to generate a new question based on the plurality of questions and determine if the sporting event has ended based on the end time, which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III). The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory, including instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). access a plurality of questions (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.). access an end time of a sporting event (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.). transmit the new question to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.). The examiner notes that the preamble of claim 1 for real-time online user interaction with an athlete is intended use only and claim 1 does not expressly recite performing real-time online user interaction with an athlete. Rather claim 1 only recites a system for the intended use of real-time online interaction with an athlete and the claim 1 limitations do not require actually performing real-time online interaction with an athlete. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea. Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and accessing and transmitting data over a network is well-understood, routine and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d), and the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is ineligible. Claim 2 , dependent on claim 1 recites additional mental processes for wherein when generating a new question based on the plurality of questions, assign a first score, to each question of the plurality of questions based on how related each of the plurality of questions are to one another; generate, the new question based on a subset of the plurality of questions, where the subset includes questions that have a score over a threshold value; and assign a second score to the new question based on how many questions of the plurality of questions make up the subset of the plurality of questions , which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III). The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). receive the plurality of questions (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.) as an input to a machine learning model (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). by the machine learning model (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 3 , dependent on claim 2, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein in transmitting the new question to the athlete, (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.) the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the system to (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). transmit the new question to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending based on the second score (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.) Claim 4, dependent on claim 2, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the machine learning model includes natural language processing (This additional element amounts to merely the words to “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f).) Also, this additional element amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technologic environment or field of use - The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner does not meaningfully limit the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 5, dependent on claim 1, recites additional mental processes to filter the plurality of questions for profanity; and remove questions from the plurality of questions that include profanity in response to the filtering , which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III). The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). Claim 6 , dependent on claim 1, recites additional mental processes for wherein when generating a new question based on the plurality of questions, group the plurality of questions into a plurality of sub-groups of questions that include a same topic relating to an athlete of the sporting event, where in the plurality of questions in each are topically related to one another; and sort the plurality of groups of questions based on which of the plurality of groups of questions have a largest quantity of questions , which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III). The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). Claim 7 , dependent on claim 1, recites additional mental processes to generate a new question based on the sub-group of questions that includes a largest quantity of questions to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending , which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III). The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). Claim 8 , dependent on claim 7, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). transmit the new question to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending and a number of votes (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.) Claim 9 , dependent on claim 6, does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). receive a number of votes for each group of the plurality of groups of questions (An additional element of extra-solution activity that courts have identified is well understood, routine and conventional activity for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the internet to gather data. See also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50, footnote 31.). Claim 10 , dependent on claim 9, recites additional mental processes to generate a new question based on the group of questions that includes a largest number of votes in response to the sporting event ending , which are mental processes or concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion, or by a human using pen and paper. MPEP 210604(a)(2)(III). The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements consist of: wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to (an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f), MPEP 2106.04(d), 2019 Guidance, 84 FR 50 at 55, footnote 30.). Claims 11-19 recite methods that parallel the systems of claims 1-10 and are comparably rejected as set forth above with respect to claims 1-10. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 6-7, 11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Overstreet (Patent No. US 8,060,390 B1, issued November 15, 2011) in view of Dave et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0351756 A1, published December 6, 2018) hereinafter Dave . Regarding claim 1 , Overstreet teaches: A system for real-time online user interaction with an athlete, comprising (i.e., Other types of interviews, and related speaker/audience situations also suffer from similar issues--nightly news, documentaries, sports interviews, political interviews, seminars, and classroom education. Overstreet, col 1:54-57, col 5:16-60. The questions of Table 1 represent exemplary questions that may be asked of a sports celebrity after a game (A system (computer assisted system, server col 1:65-2:13, col 3:58-64) for real-time online user interaction with an athlete (real-time, virtually, on the Internet, communications between sports celebrity athlete and group of fans, users, col 1:65-2:13, col 12:62-67)) . Overstreet, Figs 1A,3,-7, col 1:54-57, col 1:65-2:13, col 5:16-60, col 12:62-67.) : a processor; and a memory, including instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to (i.e., ) : access a plurality of questions (i.e., Briefly, the present invention is a computer assisted system and related method for interacting with an audience by combining questions from a group of questioners, analyzing the questions, (access a plurality of questions (access, combine, and analyze a plurality of questions)) and presenting the questions in summary form for answer by a speaker or interviewee. The answers are then delivered to the questioners. The entire interview may be delivered to the questioners, or portions may be selectively delivered to separate questioners based on questions asked by the respective questioner. In one embodiment, questions may be grouped by similar subject matter; groups may be arranged by the number of associated questions or by other priority criteria. In a further embodiment, a representative question may be generated for each group. The representative question may be selected from the group or may be generated from analysis results from the group of questions. Overstreet, Figs 1A,3,-7, col 1:65-2:13.) ; generate a new question based on the plurality of questions (i.e., Briefly, the present invention is a computer assisted system and related method for interacting with an audience by combining questions from a group of questioners, analyzing the questions, and presenting the questions in summary form for answer by a speaker or interviewee. The answers are then delivered to the questioners. The entire interview may be delivered to the questioners, or portions may be selectively delivered to separate questioners based on questions asked by the respective questioner. In one embodiment, questions may be grouped by similar subject matter; groups may be arranged by the number of associated questions or by other priority criteria. In a further embodiment, a representative question may be generated for each group. The representative question may be selected from the group or may be generated from analysis results from the group of questions ( generate a new question based on the plurality of questions (generate a new (representative, composite, synthesized col 5:16-col 6:5) question based on the grouped plurality of questions) ). Overstreet, Figs 1A,3,-7, col 1:65- col 2:13, col 5:16-col 6:5, col 2:63-col 3:39, col 12:62-67.); access an end time of a sporting event (i.e., ) ; determine if the sporting event has ended based on the end time (i.e., ) ; and As similarly discussed above, Overstreet teaches accessing a sporting game event and determining that the sporting game event has ended. Overstreet, col 12:4-67, col 5:16-60. As also similarly discussed above, Overstreet teaches a system and server, which suggests and implies, but does not explicitly disclose a processor; and a memory, including instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to. Overstreet does not specifically disclose access an end time, determine based on the end time and . However, Dave teaches in the field related to technologies about remote communication, and more particularly to systems and methods for providing an advanced moderated online event incorporating text and video capabilities where attendees may interact with other attendees or with a leader. Dave, Abstract, para 2. Dave, which is analogous to the claimed invention because Dave is directed to providing interactive online events, teaches that, [00183] The event management interface 3300 may contain a time elapsed indicator 3310 and an event indicator 3311 that may display information to the leader 143 and/or moderator 144, including, but not limited to, the amount of time that has elapsed since the online event began, the amount of time remaining until the online event's scheduled end ( access an end time, determine based on the end time ), and/or the point in an online event when specific activities may be scheduled, a non-limiting example being an interview with an attendee. The estimated completion time of an event may be displayed by the event management interface 3300. The estimated completion time may be changed by leader 143 and/or moderator 144. This may cause the event management interface 3300 to update and render new information to the leader 143 and/or moderator 144. For example, the leader 143 may extend the amount of time allotted for one on one interactions with attendees. Online chat manager 162 may cause user interface subsystem 146 to display the amount of time for each remaining one on one interaction, which may be determined by dividing the available time by the number of remaining one on one interactions. Dave, Abstract, para 183.[0060] Server 140 may be configured to have one or more processors, operating in conjunction with one or more computer-readable storage media ( a processor; and a memory) , configured to provide backend services, such as data processing, data storage, data backup, data hosting, among others. Each of these subsystems may be implemented using one or more modules comprising instruction sets executed on one or more processors ( a processor; and a memory, including instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to ). Dave, para 60. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to implement the system for real-time online user interaction with an athlete of Overstreet using a processor and a memory, including instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, access an end time, and determine based on the end time of Dave, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a simple, memorable, and innovative online experience between one or more attendees and a leader. Dave, para 5, 183. This would have provided the advantages of improving the management and timing of event related communications. transmit the new question to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending (i.e., The questions of Table 1 represent exemplary questions that may be asked of a sports celebrity after a game (transmit the new question to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending (transmit and ask the questions to the athlete after the game and in response to the game sporting event ending, transmitted, asked questions include the new (representative, composite, synthesized) question generated based on the processed plurality of questions, col 1:65-col 2:13, col 5:16-col 6:6 ) ) . Table 1 includes five columns: a column for question number, a column for the question, a column for keywords, a column indicating the number of keywords in common for a particular question relative to the other questions in the group, and a column for the group. … Question 1 gets extra credit for having more keywords and thus may be selected as the representative question for the group. … Either question 3 or question 4 may be chosen as the representative question for the group. Alternatively, a composite question may be generated including all of the keywords: "Did you think you would win the game in the last three minutes by 7 to 6." (transmit the new question to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending (transmit and ask the questions to the athlete after the game and in response to the game sporting event ending, the questions include the new (representative, composite, synthesized) question generated based on the processed plurality of questions, col 1:65-col 2:13, col 5:16-col 6:6)) . Overstreet, Figs 1A, 3-7, col 5:16-col 6:5, col 1:57-col 2:13, col 12:4-14, 15-50. In sports casting, a subscription service may offer an after game debriefing by a renowned sports figure. Subscribers enter their questions as the game progresses. After the game, the sports figure reviews the questions as processed and organized by the server. The sports figure then stages an interview in front of a camera where the questions are answered ( transmit the new question to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending (transmit and ask questions to the athlete after the game and in response to the game sporting event ending, questions include the new representative question based on the processed plurality of questions, col 1:65-col 2:13, col 5:16-col 6:6) ). The interview may include an interviewer or other supporting content as desired. When completed, the interview video is made available to the subscribers as a downloadable file to be viewed on a cell phone or computer. The server may also convert the voice portion to a text transcript. Overstreet, Figs 1A, 3-7, col 12:4-14,15-50, col 1:57-col 2:13. The questioner has direct input to the questions being asked. The questions may be asked in real time and receive answers immediately. The questioner may utilize any convenient format from cell phone to personal computer, voice to text input allowing participation at a game, in the car, or at home. Overstreet, Figs 1A, 3-7, col 12:62-67, 4-61.). Regarding claim 6 , which depends from claim 1 and recites: wherein when generating a new question based on the plurality of questions, the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to: group the plurality of questions into a plurality of sub-groups of questions that include a same topic relating to an athlete of the sporting event, where in the plurality of questions in each are topically related to one another; and sort the plurality of groups of questions based on which of the plurality of groups of questions have a largest quantity of questions . Overstreet in view of Dave teaches the system of claim 1 from which claim 6 depends, including the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to and the plurality of questions. Overstreet teaches that, 13) Briefly, the present invention is a computer assisted system and related method for interacting with an audience by combining questions from a group of questioners, analyzing the questions, and presenting the questions in summary form for answer by a speaker or interviewee. The answers are then delivered to the questioners. The entire interview may be delivered to the questioners, or portions may be selectively delivered to separate questioners based on questions asked by the respective questioner. In one embodiment, questions may be grouped by similar subject matter ( group the plurality of questions into a plurality of sub-groups of questions that include a same topic relating to an athlete of the sporting event (relating to sports interviews, col 1:54-57, sports celebrity athlete, col 5:16-col 6:5) ); groups may be arranged by the number of associated questions or by other priority criteria ( sort the plurality of groups of questions based on which of the plurality of groups of questions have a largest quantity of questions (arrange and sort the plurality of groups of questions by the number of questions which is based on which of the plurality of groups of questions have the largest quantity of questions) ). In a further embodiment, a representative question may be generated for each group. The representative question may be selected from the group or may be generated from analysis results from the group of questions. Overstreet, Abstract, col 1:65-col 2:13, col 5:16-col 6:5, col 1:54-57, col 9:5-21. Regarding claim 7 , which depends from claim 6 and recites: wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to: generate a new question based on the sub-group of questions that includes a largest quantity of questions to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending. Overstreet in view of Dave teaches the system of claim 1 from which claim 5 depends, including the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to and the plurality of questions. Overstreet teaches that, (26) Table 1 illustrates seven exemplary questions which may be compared in accordance with the present invention. The questions of Table 1 represent exemplary questions that may be asked of a sports celebrity after a game. Table 1 includes five columns: a column for question number, a column for the question, a column for keywords, a column indicating the number of keywords in common for a particular question relative to the other questions in the group, and a column for the group. … Alternatively, a composite question may be generated including all of the keywords: "Did you think you would win the game in the last three minutes by 7 to 6." … Referring again to FIG. 1A, in step 110, a representative question for a group (the group alternatively referred to as a bin or category) is developed (generate a new question (develop, generate a new question) based on the sub-group of questions that includes a largest quantity (based on sub-group of questions that includes the most matches and largest quantity) of questions to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending (questions asked of the sports celebrity athlete after the game and in response to the sporting game event ending)) . In one embodiment, a question from the group is selected as being most representative of the group. This may be a question that has the most matches or highest matching score with the other questions in the group ( generate a new question based on the sub-group of questions that includes a largest quantity of questions to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending ). Alternatively, a representative question may be synthesized using the analysis elements of the group. Step 110 may be optional, especially for smaller groups with fewer questions. Step 110 provides greater advantage with large groups, such as network broadcast interviews; where reading every question manually is clearly impractical. Overstreet, col 5:60-col 6:5, col 5:16-60. Claims 11 and 16-17 recite methods that parallel the systems of claims 1 and 6-7, respectively. Therefore the analysis discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 6-7 also applies to claims 11 and 16-17, respectively. Accordingly, claims 11 and 16-17 are rejected based on substantially the same rational as set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 6-7, respectively . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 8-10, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Overstreet in view of Dave as applied to claim s 1, 6-7, 11 and 16 above, and further in view of Dharmaji (Pub. No. US 2018/0255355 A1, published September 6, 2018) . Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 1 and recites: wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to: filter the plurality of questions for profanity; and remove questions from the plurality of questions that include profanity in response to the filtering . Overstreet in view of Dave teaches the system of claim 1 from which claim 5 depends, including the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to and the plurality of questions. Overstreet teaches that Questions can be screened (filter) for those that meet program guidelines and have high audience interest. Overstreet, col 3:45-50. Overstreet in view of Dave do not specifically disclose filter the plurality of questions for profanity; and remove questions from the plurality of questions that include profanity in response to the filtering. However, Dharmaji teaches in the field related to techniques for streaming pre-recorded social media sessions involving a host and one or more participants. Dharmaji, para 2. Dharmaji, which is analogous to the claimed invention because Dharmaji is directed to , teaches that, The host, meanwhile, can log into the platform and review questions submitted by participants. Generally, these questions are sorted into a list based on the number of votes received from other participants. The sorted list enables the host to readily select several questions that participants are interested in posing. For example, the host may pre-screen the questions to filter out those that may lead to inappropriate or awkward interactions ( filter (pre-screen) the plurality of questions for profanity (pre-screen questions for inappropriateness, offensive, embarrassment, para 59); and remove (filter out and remove) questions from the plurality of questions that include profanity in response to the filtering ), and then select several questions to answer. Dharmaji, Fig. 26, para 11, 59, 116. For example, live interactions with unknown participants can lead to questions or comments that may be inappropriate, offensive (plurality of questions, questions that include profanity (inappropriate, offensive, embarrassment)) , or that may otherwise cause embarrassment on the part of the high-profile individual. Accordingly, mechanisms are needed that enable a host responsible for hosting an interaction session to select/screen the participants with whom the host interacts during the interaction session. Enabling this level of control for the host provides a brand-safe environment that in turn encourages further direct interaction between the host and the participants. As further described below, these mechanisms may include pre-filtering, pre-selecting, pre-recording, geotagging/geo-targeting, blacklisting, or any combination thereof ( filter the plurality of questions for profanity; and remove questions from the plurality of questions that include profanity in response to the filtering ). Dharmaji, Fig 26, para 59, 116. The interaction sessions could also be raw (i.e., unedited) recordings or processed (i.e., edited) recordings in which inappropriate questions, gaps of silence, etc., have been removed ( filter the plurality of questions for profanity; and remove questions from the plurality of questions that include profanity in response to the filtering ). Other media content (e.g., advertisements and audio files, such as music or sound effects) could also be added to processed recordings that are stored in the archive. As shown in FIG. 8, the archive may be readily accessible by tapping on an archive button 806 that is presented on some or all of the interfaces within the computer program. Dharmaji, Fig 26, para 116, 59, 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to implement the system for real-time online user interaction with an athlete of Overstreet using a processor and a memory, including instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, access an end time, and determine based on the end time of Dave and the filter the plurality of questions for profanity; and remove questions from the plurality of questions that include profanity in response to the filtering of Dharmaji, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a simple, memorable, and innovative online experience between one or more attendees and a leader and in order to make it easier for celebrities to have meaningful interactions with fans. Dharmaji, para 4, 7. Dave, para 5, 183. This would have provided the advantages of improving the management and timing of event related communications. Regarding claim 8 , which depends from claim 7 and recites: wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to: transmit the new question to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending and a number of votes. Overstreet in view of Dave teaches the system of claim 7 from which claim 8 depends, including the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to and transmit the new question to the athlete in response to the sporting event ending. Overstreet in view of Dave do not specifically disclose in response to a number of votes. However, Dharmaji teaches that, The questions that receive the most votes may rise to the top of a list of questions to be posed during the interactive session (in response to a number of votes (transmit and pose questions in response to a most number of votes)). Dharmaji, Figs 25-26, para 172, 173, 10-11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to implement the system for real-time online user interaction with an athlete of Overstreet using a processor and a memory, including instructions stored thereon, which, when executed by the processor, access an end time, and determine based on the end time of Dave and in response to a number of votes of Dharmaji, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a simple, memorable, and innovative online experience between one or more attendees and a leader and in order to make it easier for celebrities to have meaningful interactions with fans. Dharmaji, para 4, 7, 172-173. Dave, para 5, 183. This would have provided the advantages of improving the management and timing of event related communications. Regarding claim 9 , which depends from claim 6 and recites: wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to: receive a number of votes for each group of the plurality of groups of questions. Overstreet in view of Dave teaches the system of claim 6 from which claim 9 depends, including the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the system to and each group of the plurality of groups of questions. Overstreet in view of Dave do not sp