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 .
1. This communication is in response to amendments filed on 12/09/2025.
Claims 1, 15, and 22 have been amended. Claims 1-22 remain pending.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s remarks and amendments in response to claims 1, 20 and 22 previously objected to have been considered. Although Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 22 to remove “of” from “the activity of time” obviates one of the previously raised reasons, the following objection remains:
2. Claims 1, 10, and 22 were previously objected to for reciting, “determining [an activity time/a first activity time/a second activity time] within the electronic meeting that is associated with [activity/the first activity/the second activity] for each participant of the plurality of participants”, because this limitation does not include “the each” to specify that it is referring to the same “each participant of a plurality of participants” disclosed previously in the claims. Applicant submits that the recited features refer back to earlier introduced claimed features and are provided for proper antecedent basis, which is supported by all subsequent references to this earlier introduced feature reciting “the each participant of the plurality of participants”.
Applicant is therefore urged to amend the above cited determining limitations in claims 1, 10, and 22 to also include “the each”, in order to provide clear and consistent antecedent basis referring to each participant of the plurality of participants throughout the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Applicant’s amendments and remarks in response to the previously raised rejections of claims 1-22 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 regards as the invention, have been considered and obviate some of previous objection, however claims 10-21 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the following reasons:
3. It was previously noted that claim 10 recites, “the allotted time of the first and the second plurality of participants”. The claim lacks proper antecedent basis for this language. Specifically, the previous limitation in the claim discloses “an allotted time to each participant of the first and the second plurality of participants”, distinct from “the allotted time of the first and the second plurality of participants”, which could be interpreted as the total collective time allotted for the plurality of participants rather than the individual allotted time for each participant.
For purposes of examination, “the allotted time of the first and the second plurality of participants” in claim 10 is interpreted as referring to “the allotted time to the each participant of the first and the second plurality of participants”.
Claims 11-21 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 10.
4. With regards to proper antecedent basis in claim 18 for reciting, “the first or the second activity of the particular type”, Applicant submits that claim 10 introduces “the first activity” and “the second activity” and claim 17 introduces “activity of a particular type”, however it is maintained that these recitations do not provide sufficient antecedent basis that the first or the second activity are of the particular type.
If this is what is intended, Applicant is urged to specify, in claim 18, wherein the first activity or the second activity are of the particular type, and wherein the particular type is asking a question or making a comment, in order to clarify.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments asserting that the combination of Aceron and Sipcic references fail to render the limitations of the independent claims obvious have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s arguments are directed to the limitations reciting that positioning of the plurality of participants in an electronic queue and associating an allotted time to each of the plurality of participants is based on the activity time for each participant of the plurality of participants.
Applicant’s first remarks are directed to Aceron allegedly not teaching or suggesting determining positioning of participants based on an activity time. Applicant correctly acknowledges that Aceron does teach that a ranking listing the order of how participants can and will be able to speak, corresponding with positioning of participants, and queue management are determined based on activity in a conference, including input activity associated with the participants. It is submitted that this activity input of a participant during a conference is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of activity time, given that the input occurs at a time during which the participant is active.
Applicant next traverses Sipcic relied upon for teaching the association of an allotted time to each participant of the plurality of participants being based on the activity time for the each participant of the plurality of participates because Sipcic recites that the time interval assigned to a participant may be based on how long the user participated in a prior online collaborative meeting, whereas the claim allots a time to each participant based on an activity time occurring during the same meeting. In response, it is noted that Sipcic’s use of how long a user participated in a prior online collaborative meeting is provided as an example of information used to allot time to a participant, and is not limiting as the only factor. Sipcic is directed to assigning a time interval to participants added to a dynamic participation queue to enhance meeting interactions. To perform this, column 8 lines 31-64 of Sipcic describe a dynamic profile created for each attending user based on detected activities of the user and historical data, which includes data from an elapsed period of time in real-time during the same collaborative meeting, for example one hour. Based on the information regarding the user’s activity during this time period of a current collaborative meeting, a determination is made to add the user to the dynamic queue. Adding a participant to the queue based on a time during which their user activity is monitored is within the scope of being based on the activity time for the participant. Further, column 11 lines 11-15 of Sipcic expressly recites that a time interval is assigned to a user in response to adding the user to the dynamic queue, equivalent to associating an allotted time to the participant.
The claim language specifies that an allotted time is associated to a participant based on activity time of the participant in the electronic meeting, but does not specify that the duration of that allotted time is based on activity time, or that the activity time is a specific measured duration during which the participant is active. It is therefore submitted that the Applicant’s arguments apply a narrower interpretation of these limitations than is recited by the claim language and that the combination of references teach each of the argued limitations. The rejection is therefore maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aceron et al. (US 2022/0191257) in view of Sipcic et al. (US 11,212,129).
Regarding claim 1, Aceron teaches a computer-implemented method for allotting time to meeting participants in an electronic collaborative platform, the method comprising:
electronically monitoring activity of each participant of a plurality of participants in an electronic meeting, wherein the activity occurs during the electronic meeting within the electronic collaborative platform (analyzing, by a server, over a network, data related to each user participating in a conference session via a conferencing application, [0024]; Such monitoring, as discussed above, contributes to updated weighting factors, as requests to speak, and image analysis of each user's actions (e.g., eye movement), and the like, are captured and analyzed, [0096]);
determining an activity time within the electronic meeting that is associated with activity for each participant of the plurality of participants (activity fairness weighting can be based on participant speaking time. This weighting value can vary during the call, and can periodically be polled to determine its value, [0061]);
determining positioning of the each participant of the plurality of participants in an electronic queue based on the activity time for the each participant of the plurality of participants (take the activity in a conference as an input, as well as taking attributes or characteristics about each participant as inputs, and determine a ranking or queue that lists the order of how participants can and will be able to speak in an uninterrupted manner, [0018]; determining, by the server, a weighting value for each user based on the analyzed data; determining, by the server, based on each user's weighting value, a ranked queue of speakers for the session, [0024]; Users 1-User x are compiled by a ranking engine (404), where the MEC analysis and weighting is performed (406) so that the ranking and queue management (408) is determined, which leads to the prioritized user data listing (410), [0071]);
queuing the plurality of participants in the electronic queue based on the positioning of the each participant of the plurality of participants (upon performing the weighting factor determination, then performs the ranking (e.g., the queue ranking management), [0017]; a ranked queue is determined for the session based on each user's MEC weighting factor(s), [0079]), wherein the electronic queue is associated with chronological ordering of the each participant of the plurality of participants to participate in the electronic meeting (determine a ranking or queue that lists the order of how participants can and will be able to speak in an uninterrupted manner. In some embodiments, the listing can be controlled by a moderator, which in some embodiments can be a user, and in some embodiments can be an engine or module operating on a MEC, on a cloud platform or other component of the disclosed framework, [0018]); and
controlling participation in the electronic meeting based on the electronic queue (automatically selecting, by the server, a first user from the plurality of users as a current speaker during the session based on the ranked queue, [0024]; the ranked queue is compiled, which can then be used by the host or video conferencing application to control and/or manage speakers during a conference, [0072]).
However, Aceron does not explicitly disclose associating an allotted time to the each participant of the plurality of participants based on the activity time for the each participant of the plurality of participants, or that the electronic queue is associated with the allotted time.
Sipcic teaches associating an allotted time to each participant of a plurality of participants based on an activity time for the each participant of the plurality of participants (assigning a time interval for which the user is able to participate in the meeting, column 6 lines 40-42; the meeting interaction enhancement program 110A, 110B assigns a time interval for which each user in the dynamic participation queue is able to participate. The time interval may be assigned in response to adding at least one user to the dynamic participation queue. The time interval may be based on how long the user participated in a prior online collaborative meeting, column 11 lines 11-17); and
wherein an electronic queue is associated with the allotted time to the each participant of the plurality of participants to participate in an electronic meeting (assigning a time interval for which each user who was added to the dynamic participation queue is able to participate in response to adding the at least one user to the dynamic participation queue, column 1 lines 42-46; the at least one user may be added to a dynamic participation queue so that a time interval for which each user who was added to the dynamic participation queue is able to participate may be assigned, column 3 lines 34-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assign a time interval to virtual conference participants in the system/method of Aceron as suggested by Sipcic in order to ensure that each of the participants has adequate and uninterpreted time to contribute to the conference. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to preserve quality of communication and coherence when managing the participation levels of queued conference attendees.
Regarding claim 2, Aceron does not explicitly disclose the computer-implemented method as described in Claim 1, wherein the activity includes one or more of exchanging electronic chat messages within the electronic collaborative platform, sharing a picture, sharing a document, sharing a video file, and sharing an audio file.
Sipcic teaches wherein an activity includes one or more of exchanging electronic chat messages within an electronic collaborative platform (“participate” means either a speaking role in the online collaborative meeting or any other interaction where one user is initiating communication with another user, e.g., typing into a text box and pressing “send.”, column 7 lines 3-7), sharing a picture, sharing a document, sharing a video file, and sharing an audio file.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize text messaging as a user action in the system/method of Aceron as suggested by Sipcic as a way for a conference attendee to participant and engage with other attendees. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because text based chatting is commonly used to share information between remote collaborators.
Regarding claim 3, Aceron teaches the computer-implemented method as described in Claim 1, further comprising: electronically monitoring external activities of the plurality of participants in the electronic meeting, wherein the external activities include activities that occur during the electronic meeting and are outside of the electronic collaborative platform, wherein the determining the activity time is further based on the external activities (From analysis of Bob's screen, it is determined that he is not paying attention and is focusing on something else (e.g., his eyes are not focused on the screen for a threshold satisfying period of time), [0098]).
Regarding claim 5, Aceron teaches the computer-implemented method as described in Claim 1, wherein the determining the positioning is further based on a recency of an activity of a particular type (a person who has spoken the least can accumulate a higher weight value versus a person who has spoken the most or taken the most time during the call. In some embodiments, this ranking value can be impacted by a running time or specific part of a call (e.g., the last portion (e.g., 10 minutes) of a call, [0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Aceron teaches the computer-implemented method as described in Claim 5, wherein the activity of the particular type is asking a question or making a comment (this ranking value can be influenced, adjusted or based on a person's speaking time percentages for a specific call, [0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Aceron teaches the computer-implemented method as described in Claim 1, wherein the activity time within the electronic meeting is at least one or more of an amount of time a particular participant is interacting with another participant of the plurality of participants in the electronic meeting (activity fairness weighting can be based on participant speaking time. This weighting value can vary during the call, and can periodically be polled to determine its value, [0061]; this ranking value can be influenced, adjusted or based on a person's speaking time percentages for a specific call, [0061]; a ranked queue (e.g., a stored stack data structure within the cache of the cloud platform (106)—module (304), for example) that is dynamically updated as the conference session is monitored and users interact, speak and request to speak during the session, [0099]), and an amount of time the particular participant is asking a question and an amount of time associated with an answer to the question.
Regarding claim 22, Aceron teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause:
electronically monitoring activity of each participant of a plurality of participants in an electronic meeting, wherein the activity occurs during the electronic meeting within an electronic collaborative platform (analyzing, by a server, over a network, data related to each user participating in a conference session via a conferencing application, [0024]; Such monitoring, as discussed above, contributes to updated weighting factors, as requests to speak, and image analysis of each user's actions (e.g., eye movement), and the like, are captured and analyzed, [0096]);
determining an activity time within the electronic meeting that is associated with activity for each participant of the plurality of participants (activity fairness weighting can be based on participant speaking time. This weighting value can vary during the call, and can periodically be polled to determine its value, [0061]);
determining positioning of the each participant of the plurality of participants in an electronic queue based on the activity time for the each participant of the plurality of participants (take the activity in a conference as an input, as well as taking attributes or characteristics about each participant as inputs, and determine a ranking or queue that lists the order of how participants can and will be able to speak in an uninterrupted manner, [0018]; determining, by the server, a weighting value for each user based on the analyzed data; determining, by the server, based on each user's weighting value, a ranked queue of speakers for the session, [0024]; Users 1-User x are compiled by a ranking engine (404), where the MEC analysis and weighting is performed (406) so that the ranking and queue management (408) is determined, which leads to the prioritized user data listing (410), [0071]);
queuing the plurality of participants in the electronic queue based on the positioning of the each participant of the plurality of participants (upon performing the weighting factor determination, then performs the ranking (e.g., the queue ranking management), [0017]; a ranked queue is determined for the session based on each user's MEC weighting factor(s), [0079]), wherein the electronic queue is associated with chronological ordering of the each participant of the plurality of participants to participate in the electronic meeting (determine a ranking or queue that lists the order of how participants can and will be able to speak in an uninterrupted manner. In some embodiments, the listing can be controlled by a moderator, which in some embodiments can be a user, and in some embodiments can be an engine or module operating on a MEC, on a cloud platform or other component of the disclosed framework, [0018]); and
controlling participation in the electronic meeting based on the electronic queue (automatically selecting, by the server, a first user from the plurality of users as a current speaker during the session based on the ranked queue, [0024]; the ranked queue is compiled, which can then be used by the host or video conferencing application to control and/or manage speakers during a conference, [0072]).
However, Aceron does not explicitly disclose associating an allotted time to the each participant of the plurality of participants based on the activity time for the each participant of the plurality of participants, or that the electronic queue is associated with the allotted time.
Sipcic teaches associating an allotted time to each participant of a plurality of participants based on an activity time for the each participant of the plurality of participants (assigning a time interval for which the user is able to participate in the meeting, column 6 lines 40-42; the meeting interaction enhancement program 110A, 110B assigns a time interval for which each user in the dynamic participation queue is able to participate. The time interval may be assigned in response to adding at least one user to the dynamic participation queue. The time interval may be based on how long the user participated in a prior online collaborative meeting, column 11 lines 11-17); and
wherein an electronic queue is associated with the allotted time to the each participant of the plurality of participants to participate in an electronic meeting (assigning a time interval for which each user who was added to the dynamic participation queue is able to participate in response to adding the at least one user to the dynamic participation queue, column 1 lines 42-46; the at least one user may be added to a dynamic participation queue so that a time interval for which each user who was added to the dynamic participation queue is able to participate may be assigned, column 3 lines 34-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assign a time interval to virtual conference participants in the system/method of Aceron as suggested by Sipcic in order to ensure that each of the participants has adequate and uninterpreted time to contribute to the conference. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to preserve quality of communication and coherence when managing the participation levels of queued conference attendees.
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aceron-Sipcic in view of Ouyang et al. (US 2016/0234268).
Regarding claim 4, Aceron-Sipcic do not explicitly disclose the computer-implemented method as described in Claim 3, wherein the external activities include one or more of exchange of electronic mail (e-mail), electronic chat messages external to the electronic collaborative platform, telephone call, and mobile text message.
Ouyang teaches wherein external activities include one or more of exchange of electronic mail (e-mail), electronic chat messages external to an electronic collaborative platform, telephone call (Upon receiving input to answer the call, the endpoint may generate an event identifying that a communication is being generated outside of the virtual meeting application. The endpoint may transmit the event to the servers. At time 430, the servers receive the event and analyze the event based on a metric, [0059]), and mobile text message.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify events such as a meeting participant answering a phone call in the system/method of Aceron-Sipcic as suggested by Ouyang during a virtual meeting. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because analyzing events that indicate a meeting participant is distracted would enable accurate information regarding the participant’s status and attention during a particular portion of the virtual meetings.
8. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aceron-Sipcic in view of Ji et al. (US 2024/0153397).
Regarding claim 8, Aceron teaches the computer-implemented method as described in Claim 1, wherein the positioning of the each participant of the plurality of participants in the electronic queue is further based on an amount of time spoken by a certain participant of the plurality of participants (ranking value can be influenced, adjusted or based on a person's speaking time percentages for a specific call or a set of calls, [0061]).
However, Aceron-Sipcic do not explicitly disclose a ratio of an amount of time for a question and an answer to the question.
Ji teaches a ratio of an amount of time for a question and an answer to the question by a certain participant of a plurality of participants (generating the one or more evaluation scores for the answer to the question includes generating an evaluation score for a talk-listen ratio of the participant, [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to evaluate a talk-listen ratio in the system/method of Aceron-Sipcic as suggested by Ji in order to score an answer to a question. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to use as a metric for evaluating participant interest and engagement during a conference.
9. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aceron-Sipcic in view of Adlersberg et al. (US 2020/0279567).
Regarding claim 9, Aceron-Sipcic do not explicitly disclose the computer-implemented method as described in Claim 1, wherein associating the allotted time is further based on a duration that the electronic meeting is scheduled for.
Adlersberg teaches wherein associating an allotted time is further based on a duration that an electronic meeting is scheduled for (The Audio Monitoring Unit 161 may utilize or enforce a pre-defined rule, that indicates that each participant out of the N participants in the meeting, is expected or is allowed or is encouraged to talk approximately 1/N or approximately 2/N of scheduled time-length allocated to this meeting, [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to factor a scheduled time-length allocated to a meeting in the system/method of Aceron-Sipcic as suggested by Adlersberg when assigning times for each participant in the meeting to talk. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to help ensure that each participant is assigned a fair and reasonable portion of the total time of the entire meeting.
10. Claims 10-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aceron in view of Sipcic and in further view of Peterson et al. (US 2024/0333864).
Regarding claim 10, Aceron teaches a system for allotting time to meeting participants and queue management for the meeting participants in an electronic collaborative platform, comprising:
a processor (a central processing unit (CPU) (722), [120]);
a camera configured to capture images associated with participants of an electronic meeting (cameras/sensors (766), [0119]);
a microphone configured to capture audio associated with participants of the electronic meeting (the audio interface (752) may be coupled to a speaker and microphone (not shown), [0125]); and
a memory, storing a set of instructions, that when executed by the processor (the software or programs implementing the method embodiments can be read from a hard disk drive (not illustrated) and temporarily stored in RAM (732) by CPU (722). CPU (722) may then read the software or data from RAM (732), process them, and store them to RAM (732) again, [0123]), causes:
receiving images from the camera or receiving audio from the microphone, wherein the images or the audio are associated with a first plurality of participants of the electronic meeting (coupled to a speaker and microphone (not shown) to enable telecommunication with others or generate an audio acknowledgment for some action, [0125]);
electronically monitoring a first activity of each participant of the first plurality of participants of the electronic meeting (102 of FIG. 1), wherein the first activity occurs during the electronic meeting (analyzing, by a server, over a network, data related to each user participating in a conference session via a conferencing application, [0024]; Such monitoring, as discussed above, contributes to updated weighting factors, as requests to speak, and image analysis of each user's actions (e.g., eye movement), and the like, are captured and analyzed, [0096]);
electronically monitoring a second activity of each participant of a second plurality of participants in the electronic meeting (102 of FIG. 1), wherein the second activity occurs during the electronic meeting (analyzing, by a server, over a network, data related to each user participating in a conference session via a conferencing application, [0024]; Such monitoring, as discussed above, contributes to updated weighting factors, as requests to speak, and image analysis of each user's actions (e.g., eye movement), and the like, are captured and analyzed, [0096]) within the electronic collaborative platform (client devices (102) communicate with a cloud platform (106) via one or more edge nodes (104), [0041]);
determining a first activity time within the electronic meeting that is associated with the first activity for each participant of the first plurality of participants (activity fairness weighting can be based on participant speaking time. This weighting value can vary during the call, and can periodically be polled to determine its value, [0061]);
determining a second activity time within the electronic meeting that is associated with the second activity for each participant of the second plurality of participants (activity fairness weighting can be based on participant speaking time. This weighting value can vary during the call, and can periodically be polled to determine its value, [0061]);
determining positioning of the each participant of the first and the second plurality of participants in an electronic queue based on the first and the second activity times for the each participant of the first and the second plurality of participants (take the activity in a conference as an input, as well as taking attributes or characteristics about each participant as inputs, and determine a ranking or queue that lists the order of how participants can and will be able to speak in an uninterrupted manner, [0018]; determining, by the server, a weighting value for each user based on the analyzed data; determining, by the server, based on each user's weighting value, a ranked queue of speakers for the session, [0024]; Users 1-User x are compiled by a ranking engine (404), where the MEC analysis and weighting is performed (406) so that the ranking and queue management (408) is determined, which leads to the prioritized user data listing (410), [0071]);
queuing participants of the first and the second plurality of participants in the electronic queue based on the positioning of the each participant of the first and the second plurality of participants (upon performing the weighting factor determination, then performs the ranking (e.g., the queue ranking management), [0017]; a ranked queue is determined for the session based on each user's MEC weighting factor(s), [0079]), wherein the electronic queue is associated with chronological ordering of the first and the second plurality of participants to participate in the electronic meeting (determine a ranking or queue that lists the order of how participants can and will be able to speak in an uninterrupted manner. In some embodiments, the listing can be controlled by a moderator, which in some embodiments can be a user, and in some embodiments can be an engine or module operating on a MEC, on a cloud platform or other component of the disclosed framework, [0018]); and
controlling participation in the electronic meeting based on the electronic queue (automatically selecting, by the server, a first user from the plurality of users as a current speaker during the session based on the ranked queue, [0024]; the ranked queue is compiled, which can then be used by the host or video conferencing application to control and/or manage speakers during a conference, [0072]).
However, Aceron does not explicitly disclose associating an allotted time to the each participant of the first and the second plurality of participants based on the first and the second activity times or that the electronic queue is associated with the allotted time.
Sipcic teaches associating an allotted time to each participant of a first and a second plurality of participants based on first and second activity times (assigning a time interval for which the user is able to participate in the meeting, column 6 lines 40-42; the meeting interaction enhancement program 110A, 110B assigns a time interval for which each user in the dynamic participation queue is able to participate. The time interval may be assigned in response to adding at least one user to the dynamic participation queue. The time interval may be based on how long the user participated in a prior online collaborative meeting, column 11 lines 11-17); and
wherein an electronic queue is associated with the allotted time of the first and the second plurality of participants to participant in an electronic meetings (assigning a time interval for which each user who was added to the dynamic participation queue is able to participate in response to adding the at least one user to the dynamic participation queue, column 1 lines 42-46; the at least one user may be added to a dynamic participation queue so that a time interval for which each user who was added to the dynamic participation queue is able to participate may be assigned, column 3 lines 34-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assign a time interval to virtual conference participants in the system/method of Aceron as suggested by Sipcic in order to ensure that each of the participants has adequate and uninterpreted time to contribute to the conference. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to preserve quality of communication and coherence when managing the participation levels of queued conference attendees.
However, Aceron-Sipcic do not explicitly disclose the first plurality of participants of the electronic meeting join the electronic meeting using a single account.
Peterson teaches receiving images from a camera or receiving audio from a microphone, wherein the images or the audio are associated with a first plurality of participants of an electronic meeting that join the electronic meeting using a single account (two users collectively logged in to the video conference using a single conferencing room device and but one of their accounts/profiles, [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that two or more users logging into a video conference from a single room could use the same account in the system/method of Aceron-Sipcic as suggested by Peterson in order to avoid multiple devices in the same vicinity logging in to the same meeting, resulting in redundancy and feedback. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because voice and facial recognition would still enable individual participants logged in using the same device and account to identified.
Regarding claim 11, Aceron-Sipcic do not explicitly disclose the system as described in Claim 10, wherein the electronically monitoring the first activity of the first plurality of participants of the electronic meeting further includes performing image recognition for distinguishing between participants of the first plurality of participants.
Peterson teaches wherein electronically monitoring a first activity of a first plurality of participants of an electronic meeting further includes performing image recognition for distinguishing between participants of the first plurality of participants (autonomously identify the identity of both Sam and Dave via facial recognition to then add them to the list 314, other techniques including voice recognition and client device wireless signal identifier may be used to autonomously add the identified person to the list 314 as an attendee/participant, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that two or more users logging into a video conference from a single room could use the same account in the system/method of Aceron-Sipcic as suggested by Peterson in order to avoid multiple devices in the same vicinity logging in to the same meeting, resulting in redundancy and feedback. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because voice and facial recognition would still enable individual participants logged in using the same device and account to identified.
Regarding claim 12, Aceron-Sipcic do not explicitly disclose the system as described in Claim 10, wherein the electronically monitoring the first activity of the first plurality of participants of the electronic meeting further includes performing voice recognition for distinguishing between participants of the first plurality of participants.
Peterson teaches wherein electronically monitoring a first activity of a first plurality of participants of an electronic meeting further includes performing voice recognition for distinguishing between participants of the first plurality of participants (autonomously identify the identity of both Sam and Dave via facial recognition to then add them to the list 314, other techniques including voice recognition and client device wireless signal identifier may be used to autonomously add the identified person to the list 314 as an attendee/participant, [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that two or more users logging into a video conference from a single room could use the same account in the system/method of Aceron-Sipcic as suggested by Peterson in order to avoid multiple devices in the same vicinity logging in to the same meeting, resulting in redundancy and feedback. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because voice and facial recognition would still enable individual participants logged in using the same device and account to identified.
Regarding claim 13, Aceron teaches the system as described in Claim 10, wherein determining positioning of the each participant of the first plurality of participants in the electronic queue is further based on activity of the first plurality of participants that is unrelated to the electronic meeting (From analysis of Bob's screen, it is determined that he is not paying attention and is focusing on something else (e.g., his eyes are not focused on the screen for a threshold satisfying period of time). Therefore, these factors can contribute to his weighting values being lowered to enable Jane to leap him in the ranked listing, [0098]).
Regarding claim 14, Aceron does not explicitly disclose the system as described in Claim 10, wherein the second activity includes one or more of exchanging electronic chat messages within the electronic collaborative platform, sharing a picture, sharing a document, sharing a video file, and sharing an audio file.
Sipcic teaches wherein a second activity includes one or more of exchanging electronic chat messages within an electronic collaborative platform (“participate” means either a speaking role in the online collaborative meeting or any other interaction where one user is initiating communication with another user, e.g., typing into a text box and pressing “send.”, column 7 lines 3-7), sharing a picture, sharing a document, sharing a video file, and sharing an audio file.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize text messaging as a user action in the system/method of Aceron as suggested by Sipcic as a way for a conference attendee to participant and engage with other attendees. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because text based chatting is commonly used to share information between remote collaborators.
Regarding claim 15, Aceron teaches the system as described in Claim 10, further comprising:
electronically monitoring external activities of the first and the second plurality of participants in the electronic meeting, wherein the external activities include activities that occur during the electronic meeting and are outside of the electronic collaborative platform, wherein the determining the first activity time is further based on the external activities (From analysis of Bob's screen, it is determined that he is not paying attention and is focusing on something else (e.g., his eyes are not focused on the screen for a threshold satisfying period of time), [0098]).
Regarding claim 17, Aceron teaches the system as described in Claim 10, wherein the determining the positioning is further based on a recency of an activity of a particular type (a person who has spoken the least can accumulate a higher weight value versus a person who has spoken the most or taken the most time during the call. In some embodiments, this ranking value can be impacted by a running time or specific part of a call (e.g., the last portion (e.g., 10 minutes) of a call, [0061]).
Regarding claim 18, Aceron teaches the system as described in Claim 17, wherein the first or the second activity of the particular type is asking a question or making a comment (this ranking value can be influenced, adjusted or based on a person's speaking time percentages for a specific call, [0061]).
Regarding claim 19, Aceron teaches the system as described in Claim 10, wherein the first activity time within the electronic meeting that is at least one or more of an amount of time a particular participant is interacting with another participant of the first or the second plurality of participants in the electronic meeting (activity fairness weighting can be based on participant speaking time. This weighting value can vary during the call, and can periodically be polled to determine its value, [0061]; this ranking value can be influenced, adjusted or based on a person's speaking time percentages for a specific call, [0061]; a ranked queue (e.g., a stored stack data structure within the cache of the cloud platform (106)—module (304), for example) that is dynamically updated as the conference session is monitored and users interact, speak and request to speak during the session, [0099]), and an amount of time the particular participant is asking a question and an amount of time associated with an answer to the question.
11. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aceron-Sipcic-Peterson in view of Ouyang.
Regarding claim 16, Aceron-Sipcic-Peterson do not explicitly disclose the system as described in Claim 15, wherein the external activities include one or more of exchange of electronic mail (e-mail), electronic chat messages external to the electronic collaborative platform, telephone call, and mobile text message.
Ouyang teaches wherein external activities include one or more of exchange of electronic mail (e-mail), electronic chat messages external to an electronic collaborative platform, telephone call (Upon receiving input to answer the call, the endpoint may generate an event identifying that a communication is being generated outside of the virtual meeting application. The endpoint may transmit the event to the servers. At time 430, the servers receive the event and analyze the event based on a metric, [0059]), and mobile text message.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify events such as a meeting participant answering a phone call in the system/method of Aceron-Sipcic-Peterson as suggested by Ouyang during a virtual meeting. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because analyzing events that indicate a meeting participant is distracted would enable accurate information regarding the participant’s status and attention during a particular portion of the virtual meetings.
12. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aceron-Sipcic-Peterson in view of Ji.
Regarding claim 20, Aceron teaches the system as described in Claim 10, wherein the positioning of the each participant of the first and the second plurality of participants in the electronic queue is further based on an amount of time spoken by a certain participant of the first and the second plurality of participants (ranking value can be influenced, adjusted or based on a person's speaking time percentages for a specific call or a set of calls, [0061]).
However, Aceron-Sipcic-Peterson do not explicitly disclose a ratio of an amount of time for a question and an answer to the question.
Ji teaches a ratio of an amount of time for a question and an answer to the question by a certain participant (generating the one or more evaluation scores for the answer to the question includes generating an evaluation score for a talk-listen ratio of the participant, [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to evaluate a talk-listen ratio in the system/method of Aceron-Sipcic-Peterson as suggested by Ji in order to score an answer to a question. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to use as a metric for evaluating participant interest and engagement during a conference.
13. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aceron-Sipcic-Peterson in view of Adlersberg.
Regarding claim 21, Aceron-Sipcic-Peterson do not explicitly disclose the system as described in Claim 10, wherein associating the allotted time is further based on a duration that the electronic meeting is scheduled for.
Adlersberg teaches wherein associating an allotted time is further based on a duration that an electronic meeting is scheduled for (The Audio Monitoring Unit 161 may utilize or enforce a pre-defined rule, that indicates that each participant out of the N participants in the meeting, is expected or is allowed or is encouraged to talk approximately 1/N or approximately 2/N of scheduled time-length allocated to this meeting, [0097]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to factor a scheduled time-length allocated to a meeting in the system/method of Aceron-Sipcic-Peterson as suggested by Adlersberg when assigning times for each participant in the meeting to talk. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to help ensure that each participant is assigned a fair and reasonable portion of the total time of the entire meeting.
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 MADHU WOOLCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday, Thursday 9-6 ET.
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, Chris Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
MADHU WOOLCOCK
Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/MADHU WOOLCOCK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights