DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 11, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0358583 A1, “Lee”) in view of Peters et al. (US 2022/0086393 A1, “Peters”).
As to claims 1, 15, 16, 17, Lee discloses a communication support system (Fig. 1) comprising:
processing circuitry configured to acquire a voice utterance made by a participant participating in communication and a voice utterance made by another participant participating in the communication (each transmitted channel of audio and/or video is received by a communications unit 20 from each party, para. 0021, 0038); and
visualize a situation of the communication, based on an utterance time of the participant and an utterance time of the other participant (a relative dominance score is computed for each party based on verbal measures, such as speaking time of each party, and is displayed as a visual indicator, para. 0022, 0025, 0037, 0039, 0041; Fig. 3).
Lee differs from claims 1, 15, 16, 17 in that it does not disclose: output information for evaluating the communication based on a correlation between a plurality of pieces of information for visualizing the communication outputted, and index data of a first past communication associated with an evaluation value equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold and index data of a second past communication associated with an evaluation value less than the predetermined threshold, the index data stored in a memory.
Peters teaches performing pattern analysis to compare patterns of user speech and movement with prior patterns (para. 0173), the analysis results showing different classifications of engagement level, i.e. high engagement, moderate engagement, and low engagement, based on how the levels compare to prior lectures involving the same people (para. 0284), the score being relative to a predetermined threshold (para. 0317) and a data repository storing thresholds, patterns for comparison, models, historical data, etc. (para. 0357).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee with the above teaching of Peters in order to provide for a more accurate analysis using historical information, as taught by Peters (para. 0171, 0291).
As to claim 2, Lee in view of Peters discloses: wherein the processing circuitry outputs a first index for visualizing the communication, based on a ratio of the utterance time of the other participant to the utterance time of the participant (Lee: visual indicator is based on a function for the dominance score, which includes a ratio of the speaking tome of one party to the speaking time for the other parties (para. 0037).
As to claim 3, Lee in view of Peters discloses: wherein the first index represents initiative of the participant or the other participant in the communication (dominance score is based on interruptions, which are initiated by a participant, para. 0022, 0039; number of turns, para. 0037).
As to claim 7, Lee in view of Peters discloses: wherein the processing circuitry outputs a third index for visualizing the communication, based on a ratio of a longest utterance time for which the other participant continuously utters to a longest utterance time for which the participant continuously utters (length of speaking turn, which is a contiguous period of non-interrupted speech, para. 0022).
As to claim 8, Lee in view of Peters discloses: wherein the third index represents superiority of the participant or the other participant in the communication (length of speaking turn, which is a contiguous period of non-interrupted speech, para. 0022).
As to claim 9, Lee in view of Peters discloses: wherein the processing circuitry outputs information indicating how to proceed with the communication, based on one or more of the output indexes (suggestions are displayed based on the dominance score, e.g. ask an open ended question, use reflection, etc.; para. 0026-0028, 0036-0037, 0040-0041; Fig. 3, conversation tip 60).
As to claim 11, Lee in view of Peters discloses: wherein the processing circuitry visualizes the situation of the communication, based further on an utterance frequency of the participant and an utterance frequency of the other participant (Peters: level of engagement based on frequency of speaking as well as duration, etc.; para. 0152, 0166, 0173).
As to claim 14, Lee in view of Peters discloses: wherein the processing circuitry further outputs information for evaluating the communication, based on information for visualizing the communication output by the processing circuitry (dominance scores are represented by a visual indicator 58, para. 0035; dominance scores are evaluated, para. 0040).
Claim(s) 4-6, 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Peters, as applied to claim above, and further in view of Yamaoka et al. (US 2022/0165276 A1, “Yamaoka”).
Lee in view of Peters differs from claim 4 in that it does not teach: wherein the processing circuitry visualizes the situation of the communication, based further on a number of uttered characters by the participant and the number of uttered characters by the other participant.
Yamaoka teaches evaluating a conversation based on a ratio of the number of phonemes uttered by one participant to the number of phonemes uttered by the other participant (para. 0106). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Peters with the above teaching of Yamaoka in order to include additional metrics in determining dominance in a conversation.
As to claim 5, Lee in view of Peters and Yamaoka teaches: wherein the processing circuitry outputs a second index for visualizing the communication, based on a ratio of an utterance speed of the other participant to an utterance speed of the participant (Yamaoka: speech is evaluated based on difference in speaking speed between participants, para. 0137).
As to claim 6, Lee in view of Peters and Yamaoka teaches: wherein the second index represents seriousness of the participant or the other participant in the communication (Yamaoka: speech is evaluated based on speaking speed, voice volume and pitch, para. 0017, 0099, 0128).
As to claim 10, Lee in view of Peters and Yamaoka teaches: wherein the processing circuitry visualizes the situation of the communication, based further on an utterance volume of the participant and an utterance volume of the other participant (Yamaoka: evaluation based on voice volume, para. 0017, 0099, 0128).
As to claim 12, Lee in view of Peters and Yamaoka teaches: wherein the processing circuitry outputs a display screen for displaying the situation of the communication in time series (Peters: graph of engagement scores over time during a meeting, Fig. 13, para. 0337).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Peters and Yamaoka, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Ewer et al. (US 2015/0371652 A1, “Ewer”).
Lee in view of Peters and Yamaoka differs from claim 13 in that it does not teach: wherein the display screen further displays information representing a silence time in the communication or information representing the number of speaker changes.
Ewer teaches a voice call metric as including the amount of silence (para. 0020, 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee in view of Peters and Yamaoka with the above teaching of Ewer in order to improve a talk vs. listen ratio among participants.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Norieda et al. (US 2023/0377369 A1) teach comparing meeting attribute data with past data (para. 0049, 0122). Norieda et al. (US 2023/0351806 A1) teach outputting generated analysis data, a relative comparison with past meeting data (para. 0060).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stella L Woo whose telephone number is (571)272-7512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
STELLA L. WOO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/Stella L. Woo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693