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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 32-35, 39, 40, 42, and 44-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Colson et al. (U.S. 9,652,113), hereinafter Colson.
With respect to Claim 32, Colson teaches an electronically enhanced meeting management system (column 4, line 30-35, “For example, server 106 may provide services for managing multiple overlapped electronic conference meetings occurring at a same time that a registered user is scheduled to participate in.”) comprising:
an electronic processing device (column 4, line 30-35, “For example, server 106 may provide services for managing multiple overlapped electronic conference meetings occurring at a same time that a registered user is scheduled to participate in.”) and
a non-transitory memory device in communication with the electronic processing device (column 5, line 1-25, “Storage 108 is a network storage device capable of storing any type of data in a structured format or an unstructured format.”)
the non-transitory memory device storing (i) user data (column 6, line 30-40, “transcript analyzing component 226 may utilize trigger identifier 228 to determine whether one or more triggers are present within a transcript. Triggers may be defined by registered users and/or deduced by a cognitive component of electronic conference manager 218.”)
(ii) speech recognition instructions (column 6, line 30-40, “Electronic conference manager 218 may utilize transcript generating component 222 to generate a speech-to-text transcription of each stream of speech data within conference streaming speech data 220. Transcript generating component 222 may utilize, for example, speech recognition software to generate the speech-to-text transcription”)
and (iii) processing instructions that (column 5, line 1-25, “Storage 108 is a network storage device capable of storing any type of data in a structured format or an unstructured format.”),
when executed by the electronic processing device, result in:
receiving identifying information from a user (column 6, line 30-40, ““Triggers may be defined by registered users and/or deduced by a cognitive component of electronic conference manager 218.”)
receiving from the user an indication of alert criteria (column 6, line 30-40, ““Triggers may be defined by registered users and/or deduced by a cognitive component of electronic conference manager 218. ”)
receiving an audio feed of a meeting (column 6, line 30-40, “Electronic conference manager 218 may utilize transcript generating component 222 to generate a speech-to-text transcription of each stream of speech data within conference streaming speech data 220. Transcript generating component 222 may utilize, for example, speech recognition software to generate the speech-to-text transcription”);
determining, based on the audio feed and the speech recognition instructions, a transcript of the meeting (column 6, line 30-40, “Electronic conference manager 218 may utilize transcript generating component 222 to generate a speech-to-text transcription of each stream of speech data within conference streaming speech data 220. Transcript generating component 222 may utilize, for example, speech recognition software to generate the speech-to-text transcription”);
determining, based on the transcript of the meeting and the alert criteria, that the alert criteria have been met by the meeting (column 6, line 30-40, “transcript analyzing component 226 may utilize trigger identifier 228 to determine whether one or more triggers are present within a transcript. Triggers may be defined by registered users and/or deduced by a cognitive component of electronic conference manager 218.”);
determining, by reference to the user data and based on the identifying information, a contact address for the user (column, 6, line 50-67, “The cognitive component may deduce the triggers by analyzing data corresponding to registered users, such as, for example, electronic calendar entries, social media interactions, electronic address book entries, and electronic communications, such as emails, text messages, instant messages, chats, and the like.”) and
transmitting a record of the meeting to the user at the contact address (column, 4, lines 40-50, “for example, send a notification to the registered user that one or more triggers were discovered in a particular electronic conference meeting and send a transcript of the particular electronic conference to the registered user for review in order for the particular user to determine whether to join the particular electronic conference meeting.”)
With respect to Claim 33, Colson teaches the electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 32, wherein the processing instructions, when executed by the electronic processing device, further result in: transmitting to the user a prompt to join the meeting (column 7, line 25-40, “A notification may inform a registered user of a determined high priority electronic conference meeting, for example, and recommend that the registered user join the electronic conference if the registered user is not already a participant. Further, the notification may include a transcript of the high priority teleconference meeting so that the registered user may quickly get up to speed regarding the discussion prior to joining the teleconference. The notification also may include a selectable control element that when selected will join the registered user to the electronic conference meeting corresponding to the notification.”)
With respect to Claim 34, Colson teaches the electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 32, wherein the criteria include one of: (a) the user's name is mentioned in the meeting; (b)a particular project is mentioned in the meeting; (c) a name of a team member of the user is mentioned in the meeting; (d) a department of which the user is a member is mentioned in the meeting (column 8, lines 30-65, “Content-based triggers 264 may be, for example, keywords, phrases, expletives, topics of interest, name of the registered user, names of specified participants, specified project names, and the like. Other examples of content-based triggers 264 may be questions, such as “Is Joe dialed in?”, “Are we waiting for Joe so we can start?”, or “Should Joe be participating in this meeting?”)
With respect to Claim 35, Colson teaches the electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 32, wherein the criteria include the presence of a particular attendee at the meeting (column 11, lines 25-55, “conference calls based on tone of the group of participants, tone of a particular or key individual participant, keyword or topic references made by participants during an electronic conference, names of participants, or any combination thereof.”)
With respect to Claim 39, Colson teaches the electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 32, wherein the non-transitory memory device further stores (iv) text summarization instructions, and wherein transmitting a record includes: generating, by reference to the text summarization instructions and the transcript, a summary of the meeting; and transmitting the summary of the meeting to the user at the contact address (column 12, lines 20-45, “A summary report may include, for example: a) a summary of an electronic conference meeting (e.g., topics discussed, conclusions arrived at, and actions to be performed).”)
With respect to Claim 40, Colson teaches the electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 32, wherein the processing instructions, when executed by the electronic processing device, further result in:
receiving a second audio feed of a second meeting (column 4, line 30-35, “For example, server 106 may provide services for managing multiple overlapped electronic conference meetings occurring at a same time that a registered user is scheduled to participate in.”);
determining, based on the second audio feed and the speech recognition instructions, a second transcript of the second meeting (column 6, line 30-40, “Electronic conference manager 218 may utilize transcript generating component 222 to generate a speech-to-text transcription of each stream of speech data within conference streaming speech data 220. Transcript generating component 222 may utilize, for example, speech recognition software to generate the speech-to-text transcription”);
determining, based on the second transcript of the second meeting and the alert criteria, that the alert criteria have been met by the second meeting (column 6, line 30-40, “transcript analyzing component 226 may utilize trigger identifier 228 to determine whether one or more triggers are present within a transcript. Triggers may be defined by registered users and/or deduced by a cognitive component of electronic conference manager 218.”); and
transmitting a record of the second meeting to the user at the contact address (column, 4, lines 40-50, “for example, send a notification to the registered user that one or more triggers were discovered in a particular electronic conference meeting and send a transcript of the particular electronic conference to the registered user for review in order for the particular user to determine whether to join the particular electronic conference meeting.”)
With respect to Claim 42, Colson teaches electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 32, wherein the record of the meeting is the transcript (column 7, line 25-40, “Further, the notification may include a transcript of the high priority teleconference meeting so that the registered user may quickly get up to speed regarding the discussion prior to joining the teleconference.”)
With respect to Claim 44, Colson teaches electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 32, wherein the non-transitory memory device further stores (iv) text interpretation instructions, wherein the criteria specify a topic, and wherein determining that the alert criteria have been met by the meeting includes: determining, based on the transcript and by reference to the text interpretation instructions, that the transcript covers the topic (column 6, line 65 – column 7, line 5, “Triggers may be, for example, content-based triggers and/or emotion-based triggers. A content-based trigger may be, for example, a specified keyword or topic of interest. An emotion-based trigger may be, for example, a specified electronic conference speaker sentiment, such as anger or irritation, which may be identified in the speaker's tone of speech.”)
With respect to Claim 45, Colson teaches electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 32, wherein the non-transitory memory device further stores (iv) text interpretation instructions, wherein the criteria specify a topic, and wherein transmitting the record of the meeting includes: identifying, by reference to the text interpretation instructions, a portion of the transcript that matches the topic; and transmitting the identified portion of the transcript to the user (column 8, line 5-15, “In this example, conference summary report 242 includes identified speakers 244, tone 246, topics discussed 248, conclusions arrived at 250, and actions to be taken 252. However, it should be noted that different illustrative embodiments may include more or less information in conference summary report 242 than illustrated” and column 12, lines 30-45, “A real time electronic conference meeting summary stream may assist a registered user, who is double booked with overlapping electronic conferences, to decide which meeting to participate in based on, for example: a) current content being discussed (e.g., keywords, contextual phrases based on the corpus information, et cetera); b) current tone of one or more participants or the meeting as a whole (e.g., ignore “happy” or “light-hearted” tones and focus on “angry” or “intense” tones); and c) currently identified participants in an electronic conference (e.g., via voice recognition).”)
With respect to Claim 46, Colson teaches electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 32, wherein the non-transitory memory device further stores (iv) text interpretation instructions, wherein receiving an indication of criteria includes receiving from the user an indication of a first tag, and wherein determining that the criteria have been met includes: determining, by reference to the text interpretation instructions and based on the transcript of the meeting, a second tag; and determining that the first tag matches the second tag (column 13, lines 1 – 35, “the computer may utilize, for example, a transcript analyzing component with a trigger identifier, such as transcript analyzing component 226 with trigger identifier 228 in FIG. 2, to analyze each stream of speech data and find content-based triggers and emotion-based triggers within the speech data.”)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson et al. (U.S. 9,652,113), hereinafter Colson, in view of Ma (U.S. 2019/0116338).
With respect to Claim 36, Colson teaches the electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 35, Colson fails to explicitly teach wherein the non-transitory memory device further stores (iv) image recognition instructions, and wherein determining that the alert criteria have been met by the meeting includes: receiving an image from the meeting; and identifying, based on the image and by reference to the image recognition instructions, the attendee in the image.
Ma teaches wherein the non-transitory memory device further stores (iv) image recognition instructions, and wherein determining that the alert criteria have been met by the meeting includes: receiving an image from the meeting; and identifying, based on the image and by reference to the image recognition instructions, the attendee in the image (¶ 0031, “Another example of trigger threshold 520 for facial recognition would be a determination of a recognized user for a videoconference system (e.g. employee vs guest determination) as resolved through reference to a database of images of permitted users.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Colson with the system of Ma to allow the system to identify users by facial recognition as it would allow identification for multiple people who are otherwise not identified in the system of Colson as conferences frequently have multiple people in a room where only one would otherwise be identified by a username.
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson et al. (U.S. 9,652,113), hereinafter Colson, in view of Ma (U.S. 2019/0116338), in view of Gao et al. (W.O. 2020/048447), hereinafter Gao.
With respect to Claim 37, Colson in view of Ma teaches the electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 36, Colson fails to explicitly teach in which the meeting is a virtual meeting and the image is a screen shot of the meeting.
Gao teaches in which the meeting is a virtual meeting and the image is a screen shot of the meeting (page 7, ¶ 3, “Send the screenshot image to the second server 300 through the first server 200. The second server 300 is a server with a face recognition function, that is, a face recognition server. The second server 300 performs face recognition on the screenshot image, which is about to be received. The screenshot image is compared with its own big data for face recognition, and the information of the person in the screenshot image is obtained, that is, the second recognition result, and the person information includes the name of the person.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Colson with the system of Gao as in an online conference there are multiple endpoints that would broadcast video and a screenshot or other arrangement of the various feeds would for the detection of a face in all of them with reduced context.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson et al. (U.S. 9,652,113), hereinafter Colson, in view of Grigsby et al. (U.S. 2009/0316871), hereinafter Grigsby.
With respect to Claim 38, Colson teaches the electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 32, Colson fails to explicitly teach wherein the non-transitory memory device further stores (iv) user credentials data, and wherein the processing instructions, when executed by the electronic processing device, further result in: receiving credentials from the user; and determining, based on the received credentials from the user, and by reference to the user credentials data, that the user is authorized to receive the record of the meeting.
Grigsby from the same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the non-transitory memory device further stores (iv) user credentials data, and wherein the processing instructions, when executed by the electronic processing device, further result in: receiving credentials from the user; and determining, based on the received credentials from the user, and by reference to the user credentials data, that the user is authorized to receive the record of the meeting (¶ 0038, “ In accordance with exemplary embodiments, a user utilizing the communication device 200 may call into an enhanced audio application 330 of the enhanced audio conferencing server 230. The user may log onto the enhanced audio application 330 of the enhanced audio conferencing server 230 with his or her credentials (e.g., with a username, such as the user's telephone number, and with a password). After the user has been authenticated, the enhanced audio application 330 may operatively connect to a media server application 340 of the media server 240 and/or the calendar application 350 of the calendaring server 250. The enhanced audio application 330 may access the various media (such as podcasts or any audio content) on the media server 240 that relates to the user who logged into the enhanced audio conferencing server 130.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Colson with the system of Gao as in an online conference there are multiple endpoints in most online conferences, using a screenshot allows the system to more easily analyze all of the video feeds in a given meeting.
Claim(s) 41 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colson et al. (U.S. 9,652,113), hereinafter Colson, in view of Sexauer et al. (U.S. 2020/0366510), hereinafter Sexauer.
With respect to Claim 41, Colson teaches the electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 32, Colson fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing instructions, when executed by the electronic processing device, further result in: receiving a document associated with the meeting; and transmitting the document to the user at the contact address.
Sexauer teaches wherein the processing instructions, when executed by the electronic processing device, further result in: receiving a document associated with the meeting; and transmitting the document to the user at the contact address. (¶ 0044, “Other actions might be additionally taken prior to or subsequent to disconnecting the user's computing system. For instance, the user might be provided with a recording, transcription, and or shared documents of the portion of the online conference that the user was permitted to attend.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Colson with the system of Sexauer to provide other items from a meeting such as a recording or a document as it would increase the ability of the system of Colson to provide a more informative notification.
With respect to Claim 43, Colson teaches electronically enhanced meeting management system of claim 32, Colson fails to explicitly teach wherein the record of the meeting is an audio feed of the meeting.
Sexauer teaches wherein the record of the meeting is an audio feed of the meeting (¶ 0044, “Other actions might be additionally taken prior to or subsequent to disconnecting the user's computing system. For instance, the user might be provided with a recording, transcription, and or shared documents of the portion of the online conference that the user was permitted to attend.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the application to combine the invention of Colson with the system of Sexauer to provide other items from a meeting such as a recording or a document as it would increase the ability of the system of Colson to provide a more informative notification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9AM - 5PM.
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, Jae Y Lee can be reached at 571-270-3936. 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.
/ANGELA NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2479
Prosecution Insights