DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 20, 2023, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on July 03, 2025 and December 20, 2023 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, “The computer system according to claim 1 4” should read “The computer system according to claim 1.”
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matula et. al (US 20220086391 A1, hereinafter Matula).
Regarding claim 1, Matula discloses a computer system for supporting communication between two parties, the computer system comprising: first receiving means for receiving information indicating a response that a first party of the two parties expects a second party of the two parties to make in the communication (Fig. 1; Matula); second receiving means for receiving audio and/or video during the communication (“Video camera 121 captures video of user 141 for use by endpoint 101 on a real-time video communication session with endpoint 102.” Matula [0024]); deriving means for deriving advice in the communication based on the information and the audio and/or the video (“Endpoint 101 monitors behavior of user 141 during the video communication session to determine whether the behavior satisfies a notification criterion (203)…The behavior may be determined by performing image analysis on the video captured of user 141 and/or by performing audio analysis of user 141's voice, as captured by a microphone for endpoint 101.” Matula [0027]); and providing means for providing the derived advice during the communication (“In response to endpoint 101 determining that the behavior satisfies the notification criterion, endpoint 101 directs light emitter 122, associated with the video camera 121, to present a visual notification to user 141 (204).” Matula [0029]).
Regarding claim 2, Matula discloses the computer system according to claim 1, wherein, when the audio and/or the video satisfies at least one standard correlated with the expected response, the deriving means derives the advice correlated with the at least one standard (“For instance, a words per minute value may be used to define when user 141 is speaking too fast (e.g., the criterion for a slow down notification would be satisfied if user 141 speaks faster than the words per minute value).” Matula [0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Matula discloses the computer system according to claim 2, further comprising changing means for changing the at least one standard based on a result of the communication (“The visual notification indicates to user 141 that user 141's behavior has satisfied the notification criterion so that user 141 can change their behavior accordingly.” Matula [0030]).
Regarding claim 4, Matula discloses the computer system according to claim 3, wherein the changing means (i) changes the at least one standard to relax the at least one standard when advice was not provided during the communication, and (ii) changes the at least one standard to strengthen the at least one standard when advice was provided during the communication but evaluation for the communication was low (“The notification criterion would be satisfied if that number of times is not met. Likewise, a similar discrete value may be used if user 141 is doing something too many times.” Matula [0028]. Depending on whether the criterion is not met (lower) or whether the criterion is met (higher), the user can change the criterion to any discrete value of choice (higher or lower to loosen or strengthen the value respectively).).
Regarding claim 5, Matula discloses the computer system according to claim 1 4, wherein the second receiving means receives at least the audio, and the deriving means extracts characteristics of audio of the first party and/or the second party from the audio and derives the advice based on at least the input and the characteristics of the audio (“For instance, a words per minute value may be used to define when user 141 is speaking too fast (e.g., the criterion for a slow down notification would be satisfied if user 141 speaks faster than the words per minute value).” Matula [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Matula discloses the computer system according to claim 5, wherein the characteristics of the audio of the first party include at least one of the following elements. Examiner chooses to reject to element b.
pitch of audio at a time when the first party uttered predetermined words,
speed of the audio at the time when the first party uttered the predetermined words (“For instance, a words per minute value may be used to define when user 141 is speaking too fast (e.g., the criterion for a slow down notification would be satisfied if user 141 speaks faster than the words per minute value).” Matula [0028]),
volume of the audio at the time when the first party uttered the predetermined words,
and a number of times the first party uttered the predetermined words.
Regarding claim 7, Matula discloses the computer system according to claims 5, wherein characteristics of the audio of the second party include words uttered by the second party (“For instance, the value may define a number of times in which user 141 uses the word “um” and the criterion is satisfied when user 141 meets or exceeds the number. Other manners of defining when a notification should be presented to user 141 may also be used.” Matula [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Matula discloses the computer system according to claims 1, wherein the second receiving means receives at least the video, and the deriving means extracts characteristics of movements of the first party and/or the second party from the video and derives the advice based on at least the input and the characteristics of the movements (“Alternatively, an amount of time value may be used to define when user 141 is not looking into video camera 121 enough (e.g., the criterion for a notification to look into the camera may be satisfied if user 141 does not look into video camera 121 for the amount of time over a given period, such as the previous two minutes).” Matula [0028]).
Regarding claim 11, Matula discloses the computer system according to claim 9, wherein the characteristics of the movements include at least one of the following elements. Examiner chooses to reject element e.
size of nodding,
speed of the nodding,
a frequency of the nodding,
wrinkles between eyebrows,
and facial expression (“As such, the behavior may include characteristics indicating whether and/or how much user 141 is making eye contact with video camera 121, facial expressions being made by user 141, a speed in which user 141 is talking, whether user 141 is enunciating their words, whether user 141 is pacing the conversation properly (e.g., whether the conversation should be wrapping up or, otherwise, should move on to another stage), or some other indication of how user 141 is behaving on the video communication session.” Matula [0027]).
Regarding claim 12, Matula discloses the computer system according to claim 1, wherein the providing means displays the advice on a video displayed to the first party and/or the second party during the communication (“If light emitter 122 includes a graphical display, then light emitter 122 may present an explicit message, symbol, pictograph, or other type of graphic conveying the visual notification.” Matula [0030]).
Regarding claim 13, Matula discloses the computer system according to claim 1, wherein the advice is provided to the second party, and the advice includes a matter that the second party should take into account in the communication (“Endpoint 101 monitors behavior of user 141 during the video communication session to determine whether the behavior satisfies a notification criterion (203). The behavior may include how user 141 is presenting themselves in the captured video or audio for the communication session.” Matula [0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Matula discloses a program for supporting communication between two parties, the method comprising: receiving input indicating a response that a first party of the two parties expects a second party of the two parties to make in the communication (Fig. 1; Matula); receiving audio and/or video during the communication (“Video camera 121 captures video of user 141 for use by endpoint 101 on a real-time video communication session with endpoint 102.” Matula [0024]); deriving advice in the communication based on the input and the audio and/or the video (“Endpoint 101 monitors behavior of user 141 during the video communication session to determine whether the behavior satisfies a notification criterion (203)…The behavior may be determined by performing image analysis on the video captured of user 141 and/or by performing audio analysis of user 141's voice, as captured by a microphone for endpoint 101.” Matula [0027]); and providing the derived advice during the communication (“In response to endpoint 101 determining that the behavior satisfies the notification criterion, endpoint 101 directs light emitter 122, associated with the video camera 121, to present a visual notification to user 141 (204).” Matula [0029]).
Regarding claim 16, Matula discloses A computer-readable storage medium storing a program for supporting communication between two parties, the program being executed in a computer system comprising a processor unit, the program causing the processor unit to perform processing including (“Processing circuitry 905 comprises microprocessor and other circuitry that retrieves and executes operating software 907 from memory device 906. Memory device 906 comprises a computer readable storage medium, such as a disk drive, flash drive, data storage circuitry, or some other memory apparatus. In no examples would a storage medium of memory device 906 be considered a propagated signal.” Matula [0053]): receiving input indicating a response that a first party of the two parties expects a second party of the two parties to make in the communication (Fig. 1; Matula); receiving audio and/or video during the communication (“Video camera 121 captures video of user 141 for use by endpoint 101 on a real-time video communication session with endpoint 102.” Matula [0024]); deriving advice in the communication based on the input and the audio and/or the video; and providing the derived advice during the communication (“Endpoint 101 monitors behavior of user 141 during the video communication session to determine whether the behavior satisfies a notification criterion (203)…The behavior may be determined by performing image analysis on the video captured of user 141 and/or by performing audio analysis of user 141's voice, as captured by a microphone for endpoint 101.” Matula [0027]).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matula et. al (US 20220086391 A1, hereinafter Matula) in view of Aldersberg et. al (US 20200242151 A1, hereinafter Aldersberg).
Regarding claim 8, Matula discloses the computer system according to claim 5.
Matula does not expressively teach “wherein characteristics of the audio of the first party and the second party include a ratio of an utterance time of the first party and an utterance time of the second party.”
However, Aldersberg does teach wherein characteristics of the audio of the first party and the second party include a ratio of an utterance time of the first party and an utterance time of the second party (“relative ratio of talking times of participants (e.g., participant Adam talked during 40% of the meeting length, whereas participant Bob talked during 5% of the meeting length)” Aldersberg [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matula with Aldersberg to provide the users with the additional analytics needed to improve performance in the videoconference setting.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matula et. al (US 20220086391 A1, hereinafter Matula) in view of Raviv et. al (US 20210042507 A1, hereinafter Raviv).
Regarding claim 10, Matula discloses the computer system according to claim 9.
Matula does not expressively teach “wherein the movements include at least one of a movement of a face, a movement of an arm, and a movement of a head.”
However, Raviv does teach at least one of the following elements. Examiner chooses to reject to element a.
a movement of a face (“In some examples, the movement of the face of the first user may be tracked and/or monitored using one or more machine learning techniques, such as by using a CNN and/or an algorithm corresponding to multi-task cascaded CNNs.” Raviv [0118]),
a movement of an arm,
and a movement of a head.
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matula with Raviv to provide the users with the additional analytics needed to improve performance in the videoconference setting.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matula et. al (US 20220086391 A1, hereinafter Matula) in view of Bates (US 20180365383 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Matula discloses the computer system according to claim 1.
Matula does not expressively teach “wherein the first party is a member in an organization and the second party is a superior of the member.”
However, Bates does teach “wherein the first party is a member in an organization and the second party is a superior of the member (“The present disclosure relates to health care, and more particularly, to systems and methods for automatically examining patients and generating diagnostic medical data and treatment recommendations.” Bates [0001]).”
It would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Matula with Bates to better tailor this user setting for two parties wherein one party is a superior of another.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD AHMED SYED whose telephone number is (571) 272-6777. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-7503. 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.
/SAAD AHMED SYED/ Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights