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 claims 1-32 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues on pages 2-4 that Raanani does not teach or suggest “locating, automatically..., a key moment of a call in a representation of the call...
and creating, automatically..., a snippet of the representation of the call based on the key moment located, the snippet including the key moment and context for the key moment, the context including a lead portion and a lag portion, the lead portion preceding the key moment in the representation of the call, the lag portion following the key moment in the representation of the call”. It is because, in cited FIG. 3 of Raanani, the cited first classifier "C1" has a first set
of features, e.g., features "fl"-"f3," and the cited second classifier "C2" has a second set of
features, e.g., features "f5"-"f8." And also classifiers themselves cannot be considered as "context for" anything, much less "context for" "a key moment of a call in a representation of the call," as recited in Applicant's independent Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. It is because, the applicant did not define what are the claimed “lead portion” and “lag portion” in the claim. Instead, the applicant claims “the context including a lead portion and a lag portion, the lead portion preceding the key moment in the representation of the call, the lag portion following the key moment in the representation of the call". Raanani teaches this limitation (see (fig.3; paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0041-0042). In paragraph 0012, Raanani teaches that a conversation has a key moment. In fig.3; paragraphs 0016, 0041-0042, Raanani also teaches that the second classifier C2 of a conversation can be interpreted as a key moment and classifier C1 as the claimed “lead portion” and classifier C2 as the claimed “lag portion”. In other word, classifier C2 is a combination of key moment and the “lag portion”. The classifier C1 and classifier C2 of the conversation can be considered as the claimed context.
Thus, the rejection of the claim will remain. The rejection of the claims 15-17, 31 and 32 will remain for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 17-23, 25-27 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raanani et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0092420).
Regarding claims 1, 17, with respect to Figures 1-7, Raanani teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
locating, automatically via at least one processor, a key moment of a call in a representation of the call (fig.4-7; paragraphs 0012, 0013, 0016, 0059, 0061); and
creating, automatically via the at least one processor, a conversation [i.e., snippet] of the representation of the call based on the key moment located, the snippet including the key moment and context for the key moment, the context including a lead portion and a lag portion, the lead portion preceding the key moment in the representation of the call, the lag portion following the key moment in the representation of the call (Figs. 1-4; paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0041-0042) (Note; a conversation has a key moment (see paragraph 0012) and second classifier C2 of a conversation can be interpreted as a key moment and classifier C1 [i.e., lead portion] and classifier C2 [i.e., lag portion] of the conversation can be considered as the claimed context (see fig.3; paragraphs 0016, 0041-0042).
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Raanani teaches outputting, automatically via the at least one processor, a representation of the snippet, and wherein the outputting includes storing the representation of the snippet in at least one memory, outputting the representation of the snippet as audio, outputting the representation of the snippet as text representing the audio, or a combination thereof (Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0041-0042, 0049, 0059, 0061).
Regarding claims 3 and 19, Raanani teaches wherein the representation of the call is an audio recording of the call or an audio transcript of the audio recording (Fig. 5; paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0049).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Raanani teaches wherein the call is between an agent and a customer, wherein the agent is a sales agent, wherein the call is a sales call, wherein the key moment is an utterance spoken by the sales agent or the customer, and wherein the key moment is an utterance identified by a machine learning algorithm [i.e., artificial intelligence (AI) model] as having a positive influence [i.e., positive or negative impact] on a sales outcome (Figs. 4-5; paragraphs 0002, 0010, 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0041-0042, 0049, 0051, 0059, 0061).
Regarding claims 5 and 21, Raanani teaches herein the key moment is an utterance identified by a machine learning algorithm [i.e., Al model] as having a positive or negative impact on an outcome effectuated by the call (Figs. 4-5; paragraphs 0002, 0010, 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0041-0042, 0049, 0051, 0059, 0061).
Regarding claims 6 and 22, Raanani teaches wherein the call is between an agent and a customer, wherein the lead portion includes at least one utterance spoken by the agent or customer prior to the key moment and wherein the lag portion includes at least one utterance spoken by the agent or customer after the key moment (Figs. 1-4; paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0041-0042).
Regarding claims 7 and 23, Raanani teaches wherein the call is between an agent and a customer, wherein the lead portion and lag portion represent at least ten seconds of talk time between the agent and customer immediately before and after the key moment, respectively (Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0041-0042, 0049, 0059, 0061).
Regarding claims 9 and 25, Raanani teaches wherein the locating is based on an indicator of the key moment, wherein the indicator is a timestamp or tag included in metadata of the representation of the call, and wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises identifying the indicator by parsing the metadata (Figs. 1-5; paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0035, 0041-0042).
Regarding claims 10 and 26, Raanani teaches identifying the key moment via at least one machine learning algorithm [i.e., AI model] (Figs. 4-5; paragraphs 0002, 0010, 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0041-0042, 0049, 0051, 0059, 0061);
producing a tag [i.e., indicator] for the key moment identified (Figs. 4-5; paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0041-0042); and
locating the key moment based on the indicator produced (paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0041-0042, 0049).
Regarding claims 11 and 27, Raanani teaches locating the key moment based on a received indicator of the key moment (Figs. 4-5; paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0041-0042).
Claim 31 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Raanani teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having encoded thereon a sequence of instructions which, when loaded and executed by at least one processor (paragraphs 0060, 0061).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8, 12, 24 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raanani et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0092420) in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,323,400).
Regarding claims 8 and 24, Raanani teaches outputting automatically via the at least one processor, a representation of the snippet, wherein the outputting includes transmitting the representation of the snippet to an electronic device (Figs. 1-4; paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0041-0042), However, Raanani does not specifically teach wherein the transmitting is based on at least one filter setting received from the electronic device, and wherein the at least one filter setting corresponds to the key moment. Hu teaches wherein the transmitting is based on at least one filter setting received from the electronic device, and wherein the at least one filter setting corresponds to the key moment (col.23, lines 42-53, col.25, lines 6-45). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raanani to incorporate wherein the transmitting is based on at least one filter setting received from the electronic device, and wherein the at least one filter setting corresponds to the key moment in Raanani’s invention as taught by Hu. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to efficiently remove stop words from the snippets.
Regarding claims 12 and 28, Raanani teaches wherein the call is between an agent and a customer, and wherein the method further comprises, by the at least one processor:
storing, in at least one memory, a collection of snippets associated with the agent (Fig. 5; paragraphs 0049-0051, 0060); and
adding the snippet created to the collection stored, wherein the snippet created is searchable in the collection stored in the at least one memory, by the at least one processor, based on the key moment (Fig. 5; paragraphs 0030, 0049-0051).
However, Raanani does not specifically teach wherein the snippet created is filterable in the collection stored in the at least one memory. Hu teaches wherein the snippet created is filterable in the collection stored in the at least one memory (col.23, lines 42-53, col.25, lines 6-45). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raanani to incorporate wherein the snippet created is filterable in the collection stored in the at least one memory in Raanani’s invention as taught by Hu. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to efficiently remove stop words from the snippets.
Claims 13 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raanani et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0092420) in view of Pompa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,506,268) further in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,323,400).
Regarding claims 13 and 29, Raanani teaches adding the snippet created to a collection of snippets stored in at least one memory, each snippet of the snippets associated with a respective key moment (Fig. 5; paragraphs 0030, 0049-0051); and
retrieving the collection stored from the at least one memory responsive to receipt of a call (Fig. 5; paragraphs 0030, 0049-0051).
However, Raanani does not specifically teach that the call is the API call issued by a mobile application (app) executing on a mobile device, the API call including a filter. Pompa teaches the call is the API call issued by a mobile application (app) executing on a mobile device (col.1, lines 18-24, col.3, lines 25-43, col.4, lines 1-27, col.15, lines 13-25) whereas Hu teaches the API call including a filter (col.23, lines 42-53, col.25, lines 6-45). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raanani to incorporate the feature of the call is the API call issued by a mobile application (app) executing on a mobile device, the API call including a filter in Raanani’s invention in order to provide particular call with a filter.
Raanani further in view of Pompa does not specifically teach searching the collection retrieved based on the filter and locating the snippet created in the collection retrieved and searched in an event the filter identifies the key moment. Hu teaches searching the collection retrieved based on the filter and locating the snippet created in the collection retrieved and searched in an event the filter identifies the key moment (col.1, lines 18-24, col.3, lines 25-43, col.4, lines 1-27, col.15, lines 13-25). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raanani in view of Pompa to incorporate the feature of searching the collection retrieved based on the filter and locating the snippet created in the collection retrieved and searched in an event the filter identifies the key moment in Raanani’s invention in view of Pompa’s invention in order to provide particular information based on a filter.
Furthermore, Raanani teaches outputting a representation of the snippet created, automatically, to the device in an event the snippet created is located (Fig. 1-5; paragraphs 0012, 0013, 0016, 0030, 0049-0051, 0059, 0061). However, Raanani further does not specifically teach outputting a representation of the snippet to the mobile app of the mobile device. Pompa teaches outputting a representation of the snippet to the mobile app of the mobile device (col.1, lines 18-24, col.3, lines 25-43, col.4, lines 1-27, col.15, lines 13-25). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raanani to incorporate the feature outputting a representation of the snippet to the mobile app of the mobile device in Raanani’s invention in order to provide particular representation of the snippet to a mobile app of the mobile device efficiently.
Claims 14-16, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raanani et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0092420) in view of Pompa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,506,268).
Claims 14 and 30 are rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 13. Furthermore, Raanani teaches outputting, on a snippet-by-snippet basis, respective representations of snippets of the plurality of snippets of the collection retrieved to the device (Fig. 1-5; paragraphs 0012, 0013, 0016, 0030, 0049-0051, 0059, 0061). However, Raanani does not specifically teach outputting to the mobile app of the mobile device. Pompa teaches outputting to the mobile app of the mobile device (col.1, lines 18-24, col.3, lines 25-43, col.4, lines 1-27, col.15, lines 13-25). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raanani to incorporate the feature of outputting to the mobile app of the mobile device in Raanani’s invention as taught by Pompa. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide specific content to a particular mobile app of the mobile device of a user efficiently.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Raanani does not specifically teach issuing an application programming interface (API) call to retrieve a collection of snippets associated with calls between an agent and at least one customer, the collection associated with the agent. Raanani suggests that embodiments may be provided as an API (paragraph 0058) and retrieving a key moment [i.e., collection of snippets] associated with calls between an agent and at least one customer (paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0016-0018, 0041-0042). Pompa teaches issuing an application programming interface (API) call to retrieve a collection of snippets associated with calls (col.3, lines 25-43, col.4, lines 1-7). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raanani to incorporate the feature of issuing an application programming interface (API) call to retrieve a collection of snippets associated with calls, the collection associated with the agent in Raanani’s invention as taught by Pompa. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide specific content to a particular user efficiently.
Raanani further does not specifically teach automatically playing snippets from the collection retrieved via the API call, the playing including producing an audible representation of the snippets, a visual representation of the snippets, or a combination thereof, on snippet-by-snippet basis. Pompa teaches automatically playing snippets from the collection retrieved via the API call, the playing including producing an audible representation of the snippets, a visual representation of the snippets, or a combination thereof, on snippet-by-snippet basis (col.1, line 40- col.2, line 45, col.3, lines 25-43, col.4, lines 1-27). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raanani to incorporate the feature of automatically playing snippets from the collection retrieved via the API call, the playing including producing an audible representation of the snippets, a visual representation of the snippets, or a combination thereof, on snippet-by-snippet basis in Raanani’s invention as taught by Pompa. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to play specific content to a particular user efficiently.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 15. Furthermore, Raanani does not specifically teach a mobile device including at least one processor. Pompa teaches a mobile device including at least one processor (col.1, lines 18-24, col.15, lines 13-25). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raanani to incorporate a mobile device including at least one processor in Raanani’s invention as taught by Pompa. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to access large catalogs of media content efficiently.
Claim 32 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 16. Furthermore, Raanani teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having encoded thereon a sequence of instructions which, when loaded and executed by at least one processor (paragraphs 0060, 0061).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 571-272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
June 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights