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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communication filed on 3/20/2026.
Claims 1-4 are pending.
Claims 1-2 been amended.
Claims 3-4 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112, second paragraph is withdrawn.
Applicant's response to double patenting rejection is acknowledged. The double patenting rejection is holding in abeyance, and the double patenting rejection is maintaining.
Applicant's argument(s) filed on 3/20/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1, 2 and 4 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the communication field, applicant argues in substance that:
a. Regarding claim(s) 1, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 12-13)
“This obviousness rejection fails because the combination of references asserted by the Examiner does not teach or suggest several of the claimed elements. First and foremost, the recitation "a phase synchronizer executing the five phases in sequence over the period of time" is not disclosed in the references relied upon by the Examiner. Rogynskyy's data-processing phases (e.g., ¶¶ 0187, ¶¶ 0238) for activity synchronization are not phases of a live event session lifecycle executed by a synchronizer. Dawson's sentiment processing (¶¶0055) for individual media consumption does not disclose a five-phase synchronizer (pre-event, initiation, post-event, reporting, feedback) that collects data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns across sequential live event sessions.”
In response to argument [a], Examiners respectfully disagrees.
The examiner interprets the claim limitation as first "a program/software/process/application/system/device executing the five phases/steps/stages/aspects in sequence over the period of time.". Therefore, DOWSON teaches this interpretation because "[0069] FIG.5 shows the five phases identify participant located within area 302, analyze data sources of participants for musical preferences 304, map musical preferences for participants 306, identify activity and a sentiment of participant 308, select musical content to play based on musical preferences and sentiment of participant 310, play music content 312. For example, since the language merely states “…phase synchronizer … five phases…” the “phase synchronizer” can be properly interpreted by the examiner as “a program/software/process/application/system/device etc.”, the “five phases” can be properly interpreted by the examiner as “five phases/steps/stage/aspect etc.” because they claims did not clearly define the scopes of the “phase synchronizer” and “five phases”. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).”
b. Regarding claim(s) 1, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 13)
“Second, the recitation "user data packets created to show one or more data sets collected from each of use or appearance by the participant user in the sequential live event sessions" is not taught by any of the references asserted by the Examiner. Burger's periodic credential monitoring (¶¶ 0040) does not continuously update data packets tied to each appearance in sequential live event sessions. Rogynskyy's node profiles aggregate generic electronic activities, not session-specific packets updated per use in live events.”
In response to argument [b], Examiners respectfully disagrees.
The examiner interprets the claim limitation as "created user data packets created based on data/information collected from each of use or appearance by the participant user in the sequential live event sessions.". Therefore, DOWSON teaches this interpretation because “[0037], FIG.2; through computer system/server 12, system 50 can detect the presence of participant devices 70, receive information from streaming data sources 80, and identify actions of the participants observed in live data feed 72 from visual sensor 74, audio sensor 76, and/or biometric sensor 78. [0069] As depicted in FIG. 5, in one embodiment, a system (e.g., computer system/server 12) carries out the methodologies disclosed herein. Shown is a process flowchart 300 for customizing content being consumed at a location. At 302, participant identifier 52 identifies a plurality of participants 110A-N as being located within an area 120, the plurality comprising a first participant 110A and a second participant 110N. At 304, music preference analyzer 54 analyzes a first data source 80 corresponding to the first participant 110A for musical preferences 210A of the first participant 110A and analyzing a second data source 80 corresponding to the second participant 110N for musical preferences 210N of the second participant 110N. At 306, music preference analyzer 54 maps, based on the analysis, a set of musical preferences 210A, 210N, for the first and second participants 110A, 110N, the mapping comprising linking related music preferences of the first and second participants 110A, 110N. At 308, sentiment identifier 56 identifies a sentiment of the plurality of participants based on a real-time data feed 72 that captures actions of the plurality of participants 110A-N located within the area 120. At 310, music selector 58 selects a scored set of music content 92 to play based on the mapped set of musical preferences 210A, 2010N and the identified sentiment of the plurality of participants 110 A-N. At 312, music player 60 causes music content 94N to be played from the set of music content. [0072] Further, a system or unit of executable code could be a single instruction, or many instructions, and may even be distributed over several different code segments, among different programs, and across several memory devices. Similarly, operational data may be identified and illustrated herein within modules, and may be embodied in any suitable form and organized within any suitable type of data structure. The operational data may be collected as a single data set, or may be distributed over different locations including over different storage devices and disparate memory devices. [examiner notes: if the live event is one hour, a 5-minutes, 10-minutes, 15 minutes, or any time period less than 1 hour segment are considered as a session within the one-hour event.]
c. Regarding claim(s) 1, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 13)
“Third, the claimed recitation "system controller ... collect data sets from the plurality of sequential live event sessions ... used to generate a plurality of insights" is distinct and not met by any of the references. No reference teaches a controller collecting data sets specifically from plurality of sequential live event sessions (as opposed to isolated activities). Williams' post-event surveys (¶¶0035) are generic feedback requests, not survey data collected by the phase synchronizer in at least one of the five phases to generate insights from behavior patterns in context.”
In response to argument [c], Examiners respectfully disagrees.
The examiner interprets the claim limitation as " a controller collecting data sets specifically from plurality of sequential live event sessions.”. Therefore, DOWSON teaches this interpretation because “[0037], FIG.2; through computer system/server 12, system 50 can detect the presence of participant devices 70, receive information from streaming data sources 80, and identify actions of the participants observed in live data feed 72 from visual sensor 74, audio sensor 76, and/or biometric sensor 78. [0034] The inventors of the present invention have developed a system that improves a music listening experience for a group of people based on cognitive analysis of music preferences, a given event which the group is attending, an environment in which the group is gathered, and an emotional state and/or actions of members of the group. [0053] Sentiment identifier 56 can weight particular words or phrases spoken by participant 110N based on recognized non-verbal or paralanguage behavior accompanying a word or phrase. For example, a word or phrase that is accompanied by stressing the word or a hand movement (e.g., “Rock on!” with a hand gesture associated with hard rock music) can be assigned a more weighted value than a transitory word accompanied by none of these. [0055], FIGs.1-3; It should be understood that sentiment identifier 56 can combine any type of live data feed 72 and any sentiment recognition techniques to gain a full picture of a sentiment of participants 110A-N, such as combining facial expression recognition with biometric readings to discover whether a biological reaction to music, such as an increased pulse, from participant 110N corresponds with a happy state or a distressed state. [0058] Sentiment identifier 56 can determine a location/venue or location/venue type (e.g., dining room, sitting room, vehicle, bar, dance club, fancy or casual restaurant, etc.), a time of day (e.g., breakfast, dinner, evening, etc.), an activity (e.g., eating dinner, breakfast business meeting, presentation, romantic date, socializing, dancing, etc.), and/or an event type (e.g., wedding, anniversary, birthday, convention, business meeting, party, etc.) associated with area 120.[examiner notes: sentiment and music preference interprets to be insights. If the live event is one hour, a 5-minutes, 10-minutes, 15 minutes, or any time period less than 1 hour segment are considered as a session within the one-hour event.]
d. Regarding claim(s) 2, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 14-15)
“With respect to claim 2, the combination fails to teach the recitation "user data packets ... accessible across platforms." Respectfully, Pantazelos' database is not a "user data packet" that follows participants across platforms and aggregates session data longitudinally.
Moreover, the combination of references asserted by the Examiner fails to teach the claimed recitation "include data indicative of participant user scores indicative of a plurality of soft skills ... aggregate distinct participant user skills ... skill level ... by comparison of a participant user activity to a skill index." Jorasch's tags (¶¶ 3007) are subjective ratings ("rate an individual on their contribution"), not objective scores derived by comparing participant user activity to a skill index and aggregated into distinct soft skills within a user data packet.
Clearly, Jorasch lacks any "skill index" or activity-to-index comparison mechanism, and neither reference integrates this into the claimed cross-session user packets or five-phase structure of the claimed system.”
In response to argument [d], Examiners respectfully disagrees.
The examiner interprets the claim limitation as "cross-platform skill assessment and management platform designed to track, measure/score, and aggregate soft skills.". Therefore, Jorasch teaches this interpretation because "[1363] Another aspect of the user's identity is rating information about the user's ability to play a particular game, or a rating of the user's ability to function well on a team. For example, a user’s mouse might store an evaluation of the user's team skills, such as by storing a rating (provided by other players or determined algorithmically by one or more game controllers) of 9 on a 10 point scale. When the user uses his mouse to play in a new game, that new game can access the 9/10 rating from the user's mouse and use the rating to match the user with other players of a similar team rating level. [1682] An AI module could be trained to identify whether a player is skilled at a game, as well as identify dimensions of skill related to a particular game. The module could allow a player to review their skill rating or the underlying dimensions of skill, or the module could provide automated feedback about which dimensions the player needs to improve. An AI module analyzing dimensions of skill for a particular game could be used to enable a leader, allowing a player to compare their skills with others. A leader board might also allow players to compare their performance in relation to the amount of money spent on in-game purchases. [1685] The devices could enable the development of metrics regarding “general purpose” game skills. Rather than measuring performance within a single game software, the devices could enable tracking of player device inputs, player performance, and qualitative feedback from other plays across multiple games. The devices could communicate to the central controller, in addition to the game controller, which would permit the training of an AI module to measure general purpose gaming skills. These skills might be clustered by genre of game, for example, or they might be across all video games. The AI module could permit comparisons of players across different games to allow for rankings, leaderboards, a “pound for pound” best player, or other forms of public comparison. The module could also allow game designers to handicap games, allowing players with different levels of general purpose skills to compete on a level playing field. For example, players with low levels of dexterity or visual acuity due perhaps to age or other physical condition could compete with players with high levels of dexterity or visual acuity, with the game balancing the general purpose skills of both players.”.
Furthermore, Pantazelos teach [0056] Data Storage Server 660. The data storage server stores all user information and video metadata. The data storage server may comprise a Mongo database or similar database. MongoDB is a free and open-source cross-platform document-oriented database program. Classified as a NoSQL database program, MongoDB uses JSON-like documents with schemas. [examiner notes: data storing in cross-platform database (e.g. Mango database) support cross-platforms access.]
e. Regarding claim(s) 1-4, Applicant argues (Remark page(s) 15-16)
“Further, there is simply no motivation, express or implied, for a person of ordinary skill to combine the disparate references. Pantazelos teaches secure media delivery and metadata storage in a MongoDB database (¶¶ 0056, ¶¶0078); Jorasch discloses subjective meeting tags for organization (¶¶ 3007); Dawson focuses on real-time sentiment for audio content personalization (¶¶0055); Burger monitors for identity theft (¶¶0040); and Rogynskyy and Williams address generic activity graphs and social feedback, respectively. These references address unrelated problems with no complementary teachings or shared field of endeavor suggesting integration into a five-phase sequential live-event platform with longitudinal user data packets.
In response to argument [e], Examiners respectfully disagrees.
The combination of Pantazelos yield predictable results because the motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to use Cross-platform databases allow applications to share and synchronize data seamlessly across different operating systems (e.g., iOS, Android, Windows) and environments. The combination of Jorasch yield predictable results because the motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to enable an integration of data from many sources, and enable intelligent processing of that data such that many elements of the system can be optimized and enhanced.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 limitation “a phase synchronizer configured to execute five phases in sequence over a period of time and collecting data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns demonstrated through the plurality of sequential live event sessions” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “synchronizer” is a nonce term that is modified by function and not limited by sufficient structure for performing the function. Therefore, the claim invokes means plus. The specification fails to identify algorithms for performing each of the functions named.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Following the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance:
STEP 1 Analysis:
Claims 1-4 are directed to a processor and memory, and are therefore a statutory machine.
STEP 2A Analysis:
The claim(s) 1 recite(s) the steps of collecting, observing and analyzing of live event data, said collecting, observing and analyzing data which is an abstract idea similar to the concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Limitations directed to the abstract idea is/are “create an online live event session among a plurality of participant electronic devices, by routing an invitation to the plurality of participant electronic devices requesting presence of each participant electronic device to enter the live event session, wherein the live event session is one of a plurality of sequential live event sessions created and occurring over time;
determine user identity of a participant user of each participant electronic device from one or more databases accessible by the live-event computerized system to verify if the participant user is of record in the one or more databases, the one or more databases maintaining a list of user identities and user identity credentials that are continuously updated in user data packets that aggregate one or more data sets collected from each of use or appearance by the participant user in the sequential live event sessions, wherein the processor confirms existence of the participant user; a system controller receiving the invitation and executing actions to collect data sets from the plurality of sequential live event sessions occurring over time, the data sets used to generate a plurality of insights from the plurality of sequential live event sessions; and a phase synchronizer configured to execute five phases in sequence over a period of time and collecting data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns demonstrated through the plurality of sequential live event sessions, wherein, in at least one of the five phases, the processor analyzes collected data sets and processes the collected data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns to generate the plurality of insights based on a context of the live event session, wherein the phase synchronizer further collects survey data from the participant users for inclusion in the plurality of insight.” Therefore, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES)
STEP 2B Analysis:
The claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s)/limitation(s) of “a processor; a memory storing executable code, the executable code causing the processor to:” which taken individually amounts to elements of a standard computer known in the art, as evidenced by Applicant’s background section of the specification. Taken individually therefore, the additional element(s) of the claim(s) does not provide significantly more to the abstract idea claimed.
The combination of all elements as a whole are no more than the sum of their parts, and provides nothing more than using a standard computer to observation and judgment. The claim(s) also does not improve another technology or technical field; nor improve the functioning of a computer itself, nor is the invention implemented using a particular machine. For these reasons, the claim(s) is/are ineligible. (Step 2B: No)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 11 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. US11962628B2. The instant claims are being anticipated by the patented application. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the patent disclose the limitations in the instant application as follows:
Instant Application
US11962628B2
1. A live-event computerized system, comprising: a processor; a memory storing executable code, the executable code causing the processor to: create an online live event session among a plurality of participant electronic devices, by routing an invitation to the plurality of participant electronic devices requesting presence of each participant electronic device to enter the live event session, wherein the live event session is one of a plurality of sequential live event sessions created and occurring over time; determine user identity of a participant user of each participant electronic device from one or more databases accessible by the live-event computerized system to verify if the participant user is of record in the one or more databases, the one or more databases maintaining a list of user identities and user identity credentials that are continuously updated in user data packets that aggregate one or more data sets collected from each of use or appearance by the participant user in the sequential live event sessions, wherein the processor confirms existence of the participant user; a system controller receiving the invitation and executing actions to collect data sets from the plurality of sequential live event sessions occurring over time, the data sets used to generate a plurality of insights from the plurality of sequential live event sessions; and a phase synchronizer configured to execute five phases in sequence over a period of time and collecting data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns demonstrated through the plurality of sequential live event sessions, wherein, in at least one of the five phases, the processor analyzes collected data sets and processes the collected data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns to generate the plurality of insights based on a context of the live event session, wherein the phase synchronizer further collects survey data from the participant users for inclusion in; the plurality of insights.
1. A real-time virtual live event computerized system, comprising: a processor;
a memory storing executable code, the executable code causing the processor to create an online virtual live event meeting session among a plurality of participants accessing the online live event meeting session via a plurality of participant electronic devices, by performing functions defining routing of an invitation to the plurality of participants to enter the live event session with their presence to meet in the real-time live event, wherein the live event session is one of a plurality of sequential live event sessions created and occurring over time; and
determine the user identity for each participant from an associated database to verify if the participant is of record in the database, the database comprising a list of participant user identities and user identity credentials for each participant in the database is dynamically and continuously updated in a user data packet, wherein a reconciliation action is performed by an inference engine configured to infer existence of a single user identity when the single user identity participates as multiple participants in a session from difference devices and wherein the reconciliation action comprises initiating processes to scour all data to determine one or more links among a plurality of accounts opened over time, confirm the links, merge the plurality of accounts, and conclude with a reconciled participant;
a real-time event-session controller receiving the invitation and configured to track a plurality of online live events occurring in at least five phases of the live event session, the real-time event-session controller executing a sentiment-recognition engine during the live event session that recognizes sentiment expression data by context or objectives relating to the participants active in the live event session, the sentiment expression data compiled over the plurality of sequential live event sessions and used to indicate sentiment evolution of the participants;
a phase synchronizer to execute the five phases relating to the live event session in sequence, comprising:
a first pre-event phase, in which the invitation is routed to the plurality of participants;
a second event session initiation phase, during which the real-time event-session controller starts and closes the live event session;
a third post-event session phase, during which event data is analyzed;
a fourth event-session reporting phase, during which scoring and predictive engines execute and deliver post-event data relating to the live event session; and
a fifth feedback-phase during which a query survey is sent to the participants to solicit data on event satisfaction.
4. wherein the list of user identities and user identity credentials in the database is dynamically and continuously updated by a user data packet.
2. The live event computerized system according to claim 1, wherein the user data packets are accessible across platforms and include data indicative of participant user scores indicative of a plurality of soft skills, wherein the user data packets for a particular participant aggregate distinct participant user skills, wherein a skill level is determined by comparison of a participant user activity to a skill index.
4. The real-time event system according to claim 3, wherein the user data packet is accessible across platforms and includes data indicative of participant soft skill scores, wherein the user data packet for a particular participant further comprises an insight packet representative of aggregated participant skills, wherein each skill is determined by comparison of a participant activity to a skill index, and further wherein the real-time event system determines a connection score by comparison of the insight packet to a scoring index, which connection score is usable by a recommendation engine.
2. “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus)”. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY vs. BARR LABORATORIES INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
This is a non-provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
3. Thus, this double patenting rejection is necessary to prevent unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 5-20 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Species I (claims 1–4); drawn to a live-event computerized system, comprising: a processor; a memory storing executable code, the executable code causing the processor to: create an online live event session among a plurality of participant electronic devices, by routing an invitation to the plurality of participant electronic devices requesting presence of each participant electronic device to enter the live event session, wherein the live event session is one of a plurality of sequential live event sessions created and occurring over time; determine user identity of a participant user of each participant electronic device from one or more databases accessible by the live-event computerized system to verify if the participant user is of record in the one or more databases, the one or more databases maintaining a list of user identities and user identity credentials that are continuously updated in user data packets that aggregate one or more data sets collected from each of use or appearance by the participant user in the sequential live event sessions, wherein the processor confirms existence of the participant user; a system controller receiving the invitation and executing actions to collect data sets from the plurality of sequential live event sessions occurring over time, the data sets used to generate a plurality of insights from the plurality of sequential live event sessions; and a phase synchronizer configured to execute five phases in sequence over a period of time and collecting data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns demonstrated through the plurality of sequential live event sessions, wherein, in at least one of the five phases, the processor analyzes collected data sets and processes the collected data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns to generate the plurality of insights based on a context of the live event session, wherein the phase synchronizer further collects survey data from the participant users for inclusion in; the plurality of insights., are classified in H04L 65/403.
Species II, (claims 5–7); drawn to one or more non-transitory computer-readable media collectively storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a live-event computerized system, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: for each participant user detected in a plurality of sequential live event sessions: creating a dynamic user data packet accessible across a plurality of communication platforms, the dynamic user data packet comprising: a reconciled participant identity obtained by an inference engine that merges multiple accounts for the participant user identified across the plurality of sequential live event sessions; a plurality of data sets appended from each use or appearance of the participant user in the plurality of sequential live event sessions; and a plurality of soft-skill scores computed by comparing the plurality of data sets to a skill index, wherein the dynamic user data packet is queried by the plurality of communication platforms to generate predictive behavioral insights for the participant user, are classified in G06F 21/45.
Species III, (claims 8–20); drawn to a method for tracking participant user identity across sequential live event sessions, comprising: under control of one or more processors: monitoring a plurality of sequential live event sessions to detect uses or appearances of participant users across a plurality of communication platforms; for each detected participant user, generating a dynamic user data packet by: reconciling a plurality of disparate accounts associated with the participant user into a single reconciled participant user identity using an inference engine that scours data across the plurality of sequential live event sessions; appending, to the dynamic user data packet, one or more data sets collected from each detected use or appearance of the participant user; computing one or more soft-skill scores by comparing the one or more data sets to a predefined skill index; and exposing the dynamic user data packet for cross-platform access to enable generation of predictive recommendations based on the reconciled participant identity and the one or more soft-skill scores ., are classified in G06F 16/2379.
Species II and Species III are distinct from Species I.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 5-20 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 of this title, 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.
1. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogynskyy (WO2019227062 A1) in view of Burger (US 20180365445 A1) in view of Dawson (US 20200159487 A1) in view of Williams (US 20140164511 A1).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1, a live-event computerized system,
Rogynskyy teaches a processor; a memory storing executable code, the executable code causing the processor to: (Rogynskyy, [0857], the instructions can be stored as firmware residing in read-only memory and/or program code stored in non-volatile storage media that can be read into volatile working memory for execution by processing unit(s) 2804.)
create an online live event session among a plurality of participant electronic devices, by routing an invitation to the plurality of participant electronic devices requesting presence of each participant electronic device to enter the live event session, (Rogynskyy, [0068], the method may further include identifying, from the plurality of electronic activities, a set of electronic activities to be linked to a record object of the first set of record objects; and determining, for each electronic activity of the set of electronic activities, a plurality of activity field-value pairs identifying participants of the electronic activity. [0315], the tagging engine can be configured to assign an inbound tag to received electronic activities corresponding to meeting invitations and assign an outbound tag to electronic activities corresponding to meeting invitations transmitted to other people. [0977], the tagging engine 265 may be configured to apply one or more tags which identify the type of electronic activity (e.g., an email, a phone call, a virtual meeting or an in-person meeting).)
wherein the live event session is one of a plurality of sequential live event sessions created and occurring over time; (Rogynskyy, [0068], the method may further include identifying, from the plurality of electronic activities, a set of electronic activities to be linked to a record object of the first set of record objects; and determining, for each electronic activity of the set of electronic activities, a plurality of activity field-value pairs identifying participants of the electronic activity. [0315], the tagging engine can be configured to assign an inbound tag to received electronic activities corresponding to meeting invitations and assign an outbound tag to electronic activities corresponding to meeting invitations transmitted to other people. [0977], the tagging engine 265 may be configured to apply one or more tags which identify the type of electronic activity (e.g., an email, a phone call, a virtual meeting or an in-person meeting).)
determine user identity of a participant user of each participant electronic device from one or more databases accessible by the live-event computerized system to verify if the participant user is of record in the one or more databases, (Rogynskyy, [0017], the method can include identifying, by the one or more processors, at least one candidate record object of the one or more record objects based on one or more tags assigned to the electronic activity. The method can include determining, by the one or more processors, for at least one of the participants of the electronic activity, a respective unique identifier used by the system of record corresponding to the data source provider to represent the participant. [1193], at step 4208, the data processing system 9300 may store an association between a participant identifier and participant engagement profile 4170 in one or more data structures. The data structure may be a data structure such as a class, list, array, database or other structure. The data processing system 9300 may store the association between a participant identifier and participant engagement profile 4170 in a system of record of a data source provider.)
that aggregate one or more data sets collected from each of use or appearance by the participant user in the sequential live event sessions, wherein the processor confirms existence of the participant user; (Rogynskyy, [0070] It may include determining that the at least one electronic activity of the set is used to generate the activity field-value pair that identifies the entity by: parsing the at least one electronic activity to identify a participant of the at least one electronic activity; and determining that the identified participant is an entity of the qualifying entity type. [0071] It may include determining that the identified participant is the entity of the qualifying entity type by: matching the identified participant to a node profile; identifying a field-value pair of the node profile specified by the event policy as having a field corresponding to the qualifying entity type; and matching a value of the field-value pair to a qualifying value specified by the event policy. [0244] The electronic activity can be real-time (or near real-time) electronic activity, asynchronous electronic activity (such as emails, text messages, among others) or synchronous electronic activity (such as meetings, phone calls, video calls), or other activity in which two parties are communicating simultaneously. [0377], The temporary node can then be matched to existing node profiles to determine if an existing node matches the temporary node. If so, the temporary node can be merged with the existing node profile. In some embodiments, the process of merging involves appending the temporary node with another node because there might be mutually exclusive information that should be added. [1193], at step 4208, the data processing system 9300 may store an association between a participant identifier and participant engagement profile 4170 in one or more data structures. The data structure may be a data structure such as a class, list, array, database or other structure. The data processing system 9300 may store the association between a participant identifier and participant engagement profile 4170 in a system of record of a data source provider.)
a system controller receiving the invitation (Rogynskyy, [0068], the method may further include identifying, from the plurality of electronic activities, a set of electronic activities to be linked to a record object of the first set of record objects; and determining, for each electronic activity of the set of electronic activities, a plurality of activity field-value pairs identifying participants of the electronic activity. [0315], the tagging engine can be configured to assign an inbound tag to received electronic activities corresponding to meeting invitations and assign an outbound tag to electronic activities corresponding to meeting invitations transmitted to other people.)
Rogynskyy does no teach the one or more databases maintaining a list of user identities and user identity credentials that are continuously updated in user data packets; a system controller and executing actions to collect data sets from the plurality of sequential live event sessions occurring over time, the data sets used to generate a plurality of insights from the plurality of sequential live event sessions; and a phase synchronizer configured to execute five phases in sequence over a period of time and collecting data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns demonstrated through the plurality of sequential live event sessions, wherein, in at least one of the five phases, the processor analyzes collected data sets and processes the collected data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns to generate the plurality of insights based on a context of the live event session, wherein the phase synchronizer further collects survey data from the participant users for inclusion in the plurality of insights.
Burger however in the same field of computer networking teaches the one or more databases maintaining a list of user identities and user identity credentials that are continuously updated in user data packets (Burger, [0040], such monitoring may be performed either immediately upon receipt of emails for individual users or on a periodic basis by retrieving relevant emails from a user's account. Identity monitoring service 107 may also execute a credentials monitoring module 109 which may be configured to periodically attempt to access various online services on behalf of users and retrieve personal information associated with those users in order to detect changes or updates to identity and personal information associated with those users. Identity monitoring service 107 may further execute a direct notification module 110 which may be configured to directly receive information about identity and personal information changes from one or more online services. Such direct notifications may be received through standard network protocols such as HTTP or specialized communication protocols including secure communication protocols established with online services. [0072], the user may configure direct monitoring of the selected online service using the interface elements shown in block 508. To enable direct monitoring, the user may select interface element 509. Selection of this interface element may cause the system to periodically query the online service for identity or personal information changes.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Rogynskyy by incorporating the teachings of Burger. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to prevent such identity theft and unauthorized access (Burger, [0004]).
Rogynskyy does no teach a system controller executing actions to collect data sets from the plurality of sequential live event sessions occurring over time, the data sets used to generate a plurality of insights from the plurality of sequential live event sessions; and a phase synchronizer configured to execute five phases in sequence over a period of time and collecting data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns demonstrated through the plurality of sequential live event sessions, wherein, in at least one of the five phases, the processor analyzes collected data sets and processes the collected data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns to generate the plurality of insights based on a context of the live event session, wherein the phase synchronizer further collects survey data from the participant users for inclusion in the plurality of insights.
Dawson however in the same field of computer networking teaches a system controller executing actions to collect data sets from the plurality of sequential live event sessions occurring over time, the data sets used to generate a plurality of insights from the plurality of sequential live event sessions; and (Dawson, [0037], FIG.2; through computer system/server 12, system 50 can detect the presence of participant devices 70, receive information from streaming data sources 80, and identify actions of the participants observed in live data feed 72 from visual sensor 74, audio sensor 76, and/or biometric sensor 78. [0034] The inventors of the present invention have developed a system that improves a music listening experience for a group of people based on cognitive analysis of music preferences, a given event which the group is attending, an environment in which the group is gathered, and an emotional state and/or actions of members of the group. [0053] Sentiment identifier 56 can weight particular words or phrases spoken by participant 110N based on recognized non-verbal or paralanguage behavior accompanying a word or phrase. For example, a word or phrase that is accompanied by stressing the word or a hand movement (e.g., “Rock on!” with a hand gesture associated with hard rock music) can be assigned a more weighted value than a transitory word accompanied by none of these. [0055], FIGs.1-3; It should be understood that sentiment identifier 56 can combine any type of live data feed 72 and any sentiment recognition techniques to gain a full picture of a sentiment of participants 110A-N, such as combining facial expression recognition with biometric readings to discover whether a biological reaction to music, such as an increased pulse, from participant 110N corresponds with a happy state or a distressed state. [0058] Sentiment identifier 56 can determine a location/venue or location/venue type (e.g., dining room, sitting room, vehicle, bar, dance club, fancy or casual restaurant, etc.), a time of day (e.g., breakfast, dinner, evening, etc.), an activity (e.g., eating dinner, breakfast business meeting, presentation, romantic date, socializing, dancing, etc.), and/or an event type (e.g., wedding, anniversary, birthday, convention, business meeting, party, etc.) associated with area 120. [examiner notes: sentiment and music preference interprets to be insights. If the live event is one hour, a 5-minutes, 10-minutes, 15 minutes, or any time period less than 1 hour segment are considered as a session within the one-hour event.]) a phase synchronizer configured to execute five phases in sequence over a period of time (Dawson, [0069] FIG.5 shows the five phases identify participant located within area 302, analyze data sources of participants for musical preferences 304, map musical preferences for participants 306, identify activity and a sentiment of participant 308, select musical content to play based on musical preferences and sentiment of participant 310, play music content 312. For example, since the language merely states “…phase synchronizer … five phases…” the “phase synchronizer” can be properly interpreted by the examiner as “a program/software/process/application/system/device etc.”, the “five phases” can be properly interpreted by the examiner as “five phases/steps/stage/aspect etc.” because they claims did not clearly define the scopes of the “phase synchronizer” and “five phases”. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).) and collecting data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns demonstrated through the plurality of sequential live event sessions, wherein, in at least one of the five phases, the processor analyzes collected data sets and processes the collected data sets reflective of participant behavior patterns to generate the plurality of insights based on a context of the live event session, (Dawson, [0037], FIG.2; through computer system/server 12, system 50 can detect the presence of participant devices 70, receive information from streaming data sources 80, and identify actions of the participants observed in live data feed 72 from visual sensor 74, audio sensor 76, and/or biometric sensor 78. [0034] The inventors of the present invention have developed a system that improves a music listening experience for a group of people based on cognitive analysis of music preferences, a given event which the group is attending, an environment in which the group is gathered, and an emotional state and/or actions of members of the group. [0053] Sentiment identifier 56 can weight particular words or phrases spoken by participant 110N based on recognized non-verbal or paralanguage behavior accompanying a word or phrase. For example, a word or phrase that is accompanied by stressing the word or a hand movement (e.g., “Rock on!” with a hand gesture associated with hard rock music) can be assigned a more weighted value than a transitory word accompanied by none of these. [0055], FIGs.1-3; It should be understood that sentiment identifier 56 can combine any type of live data feed 72 and any sentiment recognition techniques to gain a full picture of a sentiment of participants 110A-N, such as combining facial expression recognition with biometric readings to discover whether a biological reaction to music, such as an increased pulse, from participant 110N corresponds with a happy state or a distressed state. [0058] Sentiment identifier 56 can determine a location/venue or location/venue type (e.g., dining room, sitting room, vehicle, bar, dance club, fancy or casual restaurant, etc.), a time of day (e.g., breakfast, dinner, evening, etc.), an activity (e.g., eating dinner, breakfast business meeting, presentation, romantic date, socializing, dancing, etc.), and/or an event type (e.g., wedding, anniversary, birthday, convention, business meeting, party, etc.) associated with area 120.[examiner notes: sentiment and music preference interprets to be insights. If the live event is one hour, a 5-minutes, 10-minutes, 15 minutes, or any time period less than 1 hour segment are considered as a session within the one-hour event.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Rogynskyy by incorporating the teachings of Dawson. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to customizing audio content being consumed by a group of people in real time (Dawson, [0001]).
Rogynskyy does no teach wherein the phase synchronizer further collects survey data from the participant users for inclusion in the plurality of insights.
Williams however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the phase synchronizer further collects survey data from the participant users for inclusion in the plurality of insights. (Williams, [0035] Although request 252 asks the user to submit a "review" related to the activity (a review of their shopping experience), in particular embodiments, request 252 may ask for feedback in different formats, such as, by way of example and not limitation, a rating related to the event, for a response to a multiple-choice question, for any photos or video that the user may have taken in relation to the event, for a "Like" indication of the event, for a recommendation or testimonial, for the user to click on a link that takes the user to an input interface, etc. [0039] After the user submits the additional information to the social-networking system, the social-networking system may use the additional information to provide recommendations, sponsored stories, advertisements, or other content and/or functionality to social-networking contacts of the social-networking user [examiner notes: examiner interprets the limitation as “collects survey/feedback/questionnaire/poll/options/vote etc. data from the participant users inclusion in the plurality of insights/feelings/sentiments/opinions/views/suggestions etc.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Rogynskyy by incorporating the teachings of Williams. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to eliciting feedback from users, and particularly, to eliciting information from users for use in conjunction with a social-networking system (Williams, [0001]).
2. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rogynskyy in view of Burger in view of Dawson in view of Williams further in view of Pantazelos (US 20180083978 A1) and Jorasch (US 20210399911 A1).
With respect to dependent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 2, the live event computerized system according to claim 1,
Rogynskyy-Burger-Dawson-Williams do not teach wherein the user data packets are accessible across platforms and include data indicative of participant user scores indicative of a plurality of soft skills, wherein the user data packets for a particular participant aggregate distinct participant user skills, wherein a skill level is determined by comparison of a participant user activity to a skill index.
Pantazelos however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the user data packets are accessible across platforms (Pantazelos, [0056] Data Storage Server 660. The data storage server stores all user information and video metadata. The data storage server may comprise a Mongo database or similar database. MongoDB is a free and open-source cross-platform document-oriented database program. Classified as a NoSQL database program, MongoDB uses JSON-like documents with schemas. [examiner notes: data storing in cross-platform database (e.g. Mango database) support cross-platforms access.])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Rogynskyy by incorporating the teachings of Pantazelos. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to securely delivering and exchanging digital content and media between users over a communications network. In particular, the present application relates to methods for delivering content to a specified user while ensuring that only the intended recipient is able to view the content, and for capturing video images of the face of the recipient while he/she is viewing the content (Pantazelos, [0001]).
Rogynskyy-Burger-Dawson-Williams do not teach and include data indicative of participant user scores indicative of a plurality of soft skills, wherein the user data packets for a particular participant aggregate distinct participant user skills, wherein a skill level is determined by comparison of a participant user activity to a skill index.
Jorasch however in the same field of computer networking teaches and include data indicative of participant user scores indicative of a plurality of soft skills, wherein the user data packets for a particular participant aggregate distinct participant user skills, wherein a skill level is determined by comparison of a participant user activity to a skill index. (Jorasch, [1363] Another aspect of the user's identity is rating information about the user's ability to play a particular game, or a rating of the user's ability to function well on a team. For example, a users mouse might store an evaluation of the user's team skills, such as by storing a rating (provided by other players or determined algorithmically by one or more game controllers) of 9 on a 10 point scale. When the user uses his mouse to play in a new game, that new game can access the 9/10 rating from the user's mouse and use the rating to match the user with other players of a similar team rating level. [1682] An AI module could be trained to identify whether a player is skilled at a game, as well as identify dimensions of skill related to a particular game. The module could allow a player to review their skill rating or the underlying dimensions of skill, or the module could provide automated feedback about which dimensions the player needs to improve. An AI module analyzing dimensions of skill for a particular game could be used to enable a leader, allowing a player to compare their skills with others. A leader board might also allow players to compare their performance in relation to the amount of money spent on in-game purchases. [1685] The devices could enable the development of metrics regarding “general purpose” game skills. Rather than measuring performance within a single game software, the devices could enable tracking of player device inputs, player performance, and qualitative feedback from other plays across multiple games. The devices could communicate to the central controller, in addition to the game controller, which would permit the training of an AI module to measure general purpose gaming skills. These skills might be clustered by genre of game, for example, or they might be across all video games. The AI module could permit comparisons of players across different games to allow for rankings, leaderboards, a “pound for pound” best player, or other forms of public comparison. The module could also allow game designers to handicap games, allowing players with different levels of general purpose skills to compete on a level playing field. For example, players with low levels of dexterity or visual acuity due perhaps to age or other physical condition could compete with players with high levels of dexterity or visual acuity, with the game balancing the general purpose skills of both players.”.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Rogynskyy by incorporating the teachings of Jorasch. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to enable an integration of data from many sources, and enable intelligent processing of that data such that many elements of the system can be optimized and enhanced. (Jorasch, [0004]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WUJI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0365. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, VIVEK SRIVASTAVA can be reached on (571) 272-7304. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WUJI CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights