DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11-13, and 17-18 are amended. Claims 5 and 15 were canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 (pgs. 6-9, remarks filed 10/30/2025) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues, at Step 2A Prong One, that the claims do not recite limitations which fall under any of the sub-groupings of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (pgs. 6-8, remarks).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite limitations for (at least) receiving feedback, determining an audience sentiment based on feedback, identifying a recommendation for the presenter, and providing the recommendation to a presenter. These limitations clearly describe managing personal behavior or interactions between people by providing recommendations to a presenter based on sentiment/feedback from an audience in response to the presented content. Further, while the arguments focus on the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping, the claims were also found to recite “mental processes,” which is not addressed by these arguments. The examiner maintains that the claims recite an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One.
Applicant next argues that “Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application…Here, the claims employ the information provided by the alleged judicial exception - the feedback from the audience mixed reality headset and the location of the audience mixed reality headset - to generate a recommendation for the presenter, and to communicate that recommendation to the presenter electronic device. Thus, these elements together recite a meaningful way of using the alleged judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment” (pgs. 8-9, remarks).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The concept of receiving feedback from the audience and using it to determine an audience sentiment and generate (“identifying”) a recommendation and communicate it to the presenter describes the abstract idea itself, as per above. Receiving feedback from a mixed reality headset, which is recited at a high level of generality to sense an eye gaze/focal point, a gesture, a movement, and audio, does not indicate anything beyond the generic use of a mixed reality headset, in its ordinary capacity, to provide general sensing functionality and transmit the collected data used in the performance of the abstract idea. That the content is displayed on the mixed reality headset, pertains to a mixed reality presentation comprising mixed reality content, and the collected audience feedback comes from the mixed reality headset only generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (mixed reality – which as per ¶ 0029, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0006-0007 of the specification can include augmented reality or virtual reality content). There is no indication that applicant’s claim(s) recite an improvement to any of these particular technologies (e.g. improved mechanism of spatial recognition of eye gaze/focal points, improved gesture/movement detection mechanisms, or improved audio detection mechanisms) or to the manner in which computers collect or receive data, but instead recite the collection of various types of data sensed by the headset at a high level of generality. Furthermore, the functionality for communicating the mixed reality content to the audience mixed reality headset, and communicating the recommendation to the presenter electronic device merely uses computers in their ordinary capacity to perform basic computer functionality (e.g. to receive or transmit data) and carry out the abstract idea via generic computer implementation.
The examiner maintains that the claims are directed an abstract idea without significantly more. Please see the updates to the § 101 rejection below which are necessitated by the amendments.
35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 103 rejections of claims 1-20 (pgs. 9-16, remarks filed 10/30/2025) have been considered but are moot, as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection applied in the § 103 rejections below, which are necessitated by applicant’s amendments (except for claims 5 and 15 which are canceled).
Please see the current § 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20, in response to the 10/30/2025 amendments.
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, 6-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 recite “A method…” (i.e. process); claims 11-14 and 16-20 recite “A system, comprising: an audience mixed reality headset; a presenter electronic device for a presenter; and a computer program executed by an electronic device…” (i.e. a machine). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 1 (and similar claim 11, using claim 1 as representative) recites limitations for:
receiving…an instruction from a presenter…for a presenter to present a…presentation comprising…content to an audience…
communicating…the…content to the audience…
receiving…a location…
receiving…feedback…
determining…an audience sentiment based on the feedback;
identifying…a recommendation for the presenter based on the audience sentiment and the location…and
communicating…the recommendation to the presenter…
The limitations of independent claims 1 and 11 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. providing presentation content to an audience, receiving feedback and location information, determining an audience sentiment based on the feedback, and identifying and providing a recommendation to a presenter of the presentation based on the audience sentiment and the location information) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Since the processes described by the limitations above amount to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (i.e. providing presentation content to an audience, receiving feedback and location information, determining an audience sentiment based on the feedback, and identifying and providing a recommendation to a presenter of the presentation based on the audience sentiment and the location information), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1 and 11 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the “receiving…an instruction” and “receiving…feedback” steps amount to an observation, while the “determining…an audience sentiment,” “identifying…a recommendation” steps would be considered evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Furthermore, the concept of receiving an instructions from a presenter to present a presentation and communicating the presentation content to the audience (but for the use of generic computer components to carry out the claimed invention) and communicating the recommendation to the presenter could otherwise be performed without computers and carried out by human(s) in person with or without the use of tools such as pen and paper (e.g. verbally, with or without using visual aids). Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1 and 11 can be characterized as mental processes, but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims also fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As claims 1 and 11 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1 and 11 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. providing presentation content to an audience, receiving feedback and location information, determining an audience sentiment based on the feedback, and identifying and providing a recommendation to a presenter of the presentation based on the audience sentiment and the location information) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. a computer program executed on an electronic device, a presenter electronic device, an audience mixed reality headset, “using a trained machine learning model,” and “using a large language model” of claims 1 and 11; and “a system” of claim 11 comprising similar additional elements to claim 1). The use of the computer program, presenter electronic device, and audience mixed reality headset to receive and transmit data (see the “receiving” and “communicating” steps), wherein the audience headset presents (i.e. displays) the mixed reality content, merely uses generic computers operating in their ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.” There is nothing in the claims or specification to suggest that the invention describes an improvement to machine learning or large language models themselves, but instead uses a trained machine learning model and a large language model (recited a high level of generality) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., holding that “[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101.” That the claims correspond to mixed reality headset, a mixed reality presentation, and mixed reality content merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (mixed reality – which as per ¶ 0029, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0006-0007 of the specification can include augmented reality or virtual reality content), but does not recite anything that improves “mixed reality” technology itself. “An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment…” – See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1366, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, receiving a location and various types of feedback sensed by a mixed reality headset is recited at a high level of generality to sense an eye gaze/focal point, a gesture, a movement, and audio, and does not indicate anything beyond the generic use of a mixed reality headset, in its ordinary capacity, to provide general sensing functionality and transmit the collected data used in the performance of the abstract idea. There is no indication that applicant’s claim(s) recite an improvement to any of these particular technologies (e.g. improved mechanism of spatial recognition of eye gaze/focal points, improved gesture/movement detection mechanisms, or improved audio detection mechanisms) or to the manner in which computers collect or receive data, but instead recite the collection of various types of data sensed by the headset at a high level of generality. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, but instead also indicates that the claims recite mere instructions apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or computer components.
Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. providing presentation content to an audience, receiving feedback and location information, determining an audience sentiment based on the feedback, and identifying and providing a recommendation to a presenter of the presentation based on the audience sentiment and the location information) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. a computer program executed on an electronic device, a presenter electronic device, an audience mixed reality headset, “using a trained machine learning model,” and “using a large language model” of claims 1 and 11; and “a system” of claim 11 comprising similar additional elements to claim 1). The use of the computer program, presenter electronic device, and audience mixed reality headset to receive and transmit data (see the “receiving” and “communicating” steps), wherein the audience headset presents (i.e. displays) the mixed reality content, merely uses generic computers operating in their ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea, which does not add significantly more than an abstract idea. There is also nothing in the claims or specification to suggest that the invention describes an improvement to machine learning or large language models themselves, but instead uses a trained machine learning model and a large language model (recited a high level of generality) as tools to carry out the abstract idea.
That the claims correspond to mixed reality headset, a mixed reality presentation, and mixed reality content merely generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (mixed reality – which as per ¶ 0029, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0006-0007 of the specification can include augmented reality or virtual reality content), but does not recite anything that improves “mixed reality” technology itself as discussed above. While the claims receiving a location and various types of feedback sensed by a mixed reality headset, these functions are recited at a high level of generality to sense an eye gaze/focal point, a gesture, a movement, and audio, and do not indicate anything beyond the generic use of a mixed reality headset, in its ordinary capacity, to provide general sensing functionality and transmit the collected data to be in the performance of the abstract idea. There is no indication that the claim(s) recite an improvement to any of these particular technologies (e.g. improved mechanism of spatial recognition of eye gaze/focal points, improved gesture/movement detection mechanisms, or improved audio detection mechanisms) or to the manner in which computers collect or receive data, but instead recite receiving various types of collected data sensed by the headset at a high level of generality. Considering the additional elements as an ordered combination does not add significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-20:
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-10, 12-14, and 16-20 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 11 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 recite “wherein the mixed reality content comprises augmented reality or virtual reality content” (claims 2/12) and “wherein the mixed reality content comprises three-dimensional content” (claims 3/13) which merely further describes the content above and at best, generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g. augmented/virtual reality or three-dimensional content). There is no indication in the claims or specification that the invention provides a technological improvement to how virtual/augmented reality or three-dimensional content is displayed.
Claims 4, 6-7, 14 and 16 recite limitations that do not introduce any further additional elements but merely further describe the abstract idea(s) above for: “wherein the feedback comprises an eye gaze/focal point, a gesture, a movement, and/or audio” (claims 4/14); “wherein the recommendation comprises adjusting a tempo of the presentation” (claims 6, and similarly claim 16); and “wherein the recommendation comprises additional content to present” (claim 7, and similarly claim 16).
Claims 8 and 17 recite limitations for “wherein the additional content is identified using the large language model” (claims 8/17), which similar to claims 1/11 above, adds mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic machine learning models (i.e. the large language model). There is nothing in the claims or specification that indicates applicant has invented an improved type of machine learning model/LLM, but instead aims to use these generically recited models to apply the abstract idea. See Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. as cited above.
Claims 9 and 18 further describe the abstract idea above and recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (“identifying… a portion of the mixed reality content being presented; and causing… display the portion of the mixed reality content as highlighted or emphasized” of claim 9 and similar limitations of claim 18) using generic computer components (i.e. the computer program, and the audience headset).
Claims 10 and 19 recite limitations wherein the computer program communicates an audience view to the presenter electronic device and the presenter electronic device displays the audience view. These limitations do not add anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, as they are merely using generic computers in their ordinary capacity (e.g. a computer program to communicate data, i.e. transmit data, to the presenter electronic device – and displaying data on the presenter electronic device).
Claim 20 specifies “wherein the presenter electronic device comprises a presenter headset,” however, this merely links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-14, and 16-20 are ineligible under § 101.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240311878 A1 to Fox et al. (Fox) in view of US 20240371089 A1 to Yang et al. (Yang), and further in view of US 9843768 B1 to Negi et al. (Negi).
Claim 1: Fox teaches:
A method (Fox: ¶ 0003 “A method for automatically generating and displaying real-time virtual feedback to a presenter in a virtual environment corresponding to a user experience associated with a target audience in the virtual environment is provided”), comprising:
With respect to the limitation:
receiving, by a computer program executed on an electronic device, an instruction from a presenter electronic device for a presenter to present a mixed reality presentation comprising mixed reality content to an audience mixed reality headset;
communicating, by the computer program, the mixed reality content to the audience mixed reality headset, where the audience mixed reality headset presents the mixed reality content;
Fox teaches presenting content of a presentation in a virtual environment, i.e. mixed reality presentation, that is initiated by a presenter on an audience AR/VR headset, i.e. mixed reality headset (Fox: ¶ 0015, ¶ 0041-0044), but does not explicitly teach receiving, by a computer program executed on an electronic device, an instruction from a presenter electronic device to present the presentation content, and subsequently communication the content to the audience mixed reality headset which presents the content.
However, Yang teaches receiving an instruction from a presenter device to begin streaming audiovisual presentation content and streaming the audiovisual presentation content to the plurality of computing devices of the audience of the presentation (Yang: ¶ 0071-0073, ¶ 0079-0081, and ¶ 0002-0004).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving an instruction from a presenter device to begin streaming audiovisual presentation content and streaming the audiovisual presentation content to the plurality of computing devices of the audience of Yang in the virtual presentation and feedback system of Fox (such that the presentation of Fox is initiated by a presenter to begin communicating the presentation to the audience headsets) with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the limitation:
receiving, by the computer program and from the audience mixed reality headset, a location for the audience mixed reality headset;
Fox teaches receiving information from the audience mixed reality headset being worn by a participant in an audience in a virtual environment (Fox: ), and Fox also further teaches receiving or feedback relating to a level of sound based upon an audience participant’s virtual position within the virtual environment (Fox: ¶ 0052 showing “the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may track and correlate the level of sound with the virtual environment 200 itself and/or, more specifically, with a position of a participant in the target audience with respect to a position of a presenter in the virtual environment… the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may track the level of sound received by a participant of the target audience based on a position of the participant of the target audience in reference to the position of the presenter. More specifically, according to one embodiment, the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may again use the speakers and/or microphone associated with a participant of a target audience, as well as the virtual environment 200 itself (i.e. positions of participants and objects in a virtual space of the virtual environment 200) to continuously and dynamically measure and correlate the amplitude and/or decibel units associated with the level of sound received from the presenter based on a recorded position of the presenter”). Fox/Yang do not explicitly teach receiving a location from the audience mixed reality headset that is a location for the audience mixed reality headset.
However, Negi teaches receiving a location from a wearable device of a plurality of members of an audience, representing a physical location of the wearable device/the audience member (Negi: Col. 7: 5-22 showing audience reaction information received from a wearable device, where in Col. 7: 23-31, Col. 8: 13-24 the received information includes location data; also see Col. 5: 3 – Col. 6: 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving information from a wearable device of an audience member as part of audience reaction data including contextual information such as location data of Negi in the virtual presentation and feedback system of Fox/Yang with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the issues that “in remote sessions, a speaker is relatively isolated and may “miss the audience” or fail to get a point across. Solutions, such as relying on the audience to interrupt the person to tell the person that the idea is unclear, have low accuracy and are limited to the ability of the audience to notify the person that there has been a misunderstanding” (Negi: Col. 1: 17-22). Furthermore, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Fox, as modified above, further teaches:
receiving, by the computer program, and from the audience mixed reality headset, feedback sensed by the audience mixed reality headset (Fox: ¶ 0016 “automatically detect and track one or more user actions and user reactions associated with each of the one or more participants in the virtual event to identify real-time participant feedback associated with each of the one or more participants based on the virtual event” and ¶ 0043 “the opt-in feature may also allow users to grant the virtual presentation assistance program 160 the ability to track user actions and reactions of the user to be utilized for providing real-time virtual feedback to a presenter, whereby the opt-in feature may grant the virtual presentation assistance program 160 access to a user's/participant's computing device (again, such as the VR headset/goggles) including camera, sensors, speaker and microphone”; also see ¶ 0047-0050, ¶ 0053, ¶ 0057 ¶ 0059 further showing tracking user reactions, expressions, gestures, speech, etc. of the participants in the audience through the headset) comprising
an eye gaze/focal point of a wearer of the audience mixed reality headset (Fox: ¶ 0053 “detected user actions and user reactions that may include detected gestures, movements, and facial expressions of a user/avatar… assistance program 160 may detect whether a participant of the target audience, and/or a virtual avatar associated with the participant, is viewing the presenter during the presentation (for example, by using a camera to detect eye movement and/or tracking an avatar looking at or away from the presenter), detect certain movements or gestures (such as stretching, fiddling, typing, etc.), detect facial expressions (such as yawning, sleeping, emoting boredom, emoting dislike, emoting happiness, etc.)”),
a gesture made by the wearer of the audience mixed reality headset (Fox: ¶ 0053 as cited above showing detecting gestures or facial expressions),
a movement made by the wearer of the audience mixed reality headset (Fox: ¶ 0053 as cited above showing detecting movements such as stretching, fiddling, typing, etc.), and
audio from the wearer of the audience mixed reality headset (Fox: ¶ 0052 “ the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may again use the speakers and/or microphone associated with a participant of a target audience…to continuously and dynamically measure and correlate the amplitude and/or decibel units associated with the level of sound received from the presenter …the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may detect the participant (P5) stating, “I can't hear the presenter from over here,” when the presenter is positioned in a specific part of the virtual space, which may indicate to the virtual presentation assistance program 160 that the member (P5) is having difficulty hearing the presenter”);
determining, by the computer program and using a trained machine learning model, an audience sentiment based on the feedback (Fox: ¶ 0053 “the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may track a level of attention based on detected user actions and user reactions that may include detected gestures, movements, and facial expressions of a user/avatar”; ¶ 0054 “the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may continuously and dynamically identify different sections and groups of participants having a majority of positive or negative real-time feedback” and ¶ 0060-0061 showing determining and assigning a value to the level of attention and scaled user reactions, based on a scale/range of numbers such as a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” may indicate a negative reaction, “5” may indicate a medium/neutral reaction, and “10” may indicate a positive reaction. Accordingly, the heat map may include a spectrum of colors, whereby the spectrum of colors may correspond to a value from the range of values 1 to 10, and where the colors may include hues of red, yellow, and green to indicate negative to positive reaction sentiment; Figs. 4 and 6 show the determined user sentiment values corresponding to the audience);
With respect to the limitation:
identifying, by the computer program and using a large language model, a recommendation for the presenter based on the audience sentiment and the location of the audience mixed reality headset;
Fox teaches identifying, by the computer program, a recommendation for the presenter based on the audience sentiment (Fox: ¶ 0039, ¶ 0060, ¶ 0067 showing the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may automatically generate and display to the presenter a real-time assessment of the virtual event based on the determined correlation and the real-time participant feedback associated with the target audience, whereby the real-time assessment further includes generating and displaying on the virtual environment visual prompts representing scaled user reactions from the target audience and generating and displaying suggestions for improving the scaled user reactions), where the recommendation is determined, at least in part based on analysis using machine learning models/natural language processing (Fox: ¶ 0053, ¶ 0056, ¶ 0059) and where the audience wearing a wearable device including AR/VR headsets to view the virtual reality content (Fox: ¶ 0025, ¶ 0041) but does not explicitly teach the machine learning/NLP model being a large language model, or that the recommendation is based in part on the location received from the wearable device.
However, Yang teaches using an LLM to generate a recommendation of additional content in a presentation (Yang: ¶ 0035, ¶ 0024-0025, ¶ 0037 showing generating additional content pertaining to a virtual presentation such as a transcript, planned gestures/emotions during the presentation, or additional slides for the presentation, using an LLM). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the identification/generation of additional presentation content using an LLM of Yang in the virtual presentation and feedback system of Fox/Yang/Negi with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “accurately generate a transcript of an appropriate length for the presenter” (Yang: ¶ 0035) and “improve the user engagement by causing the virtual presenter to react to the presentation content in an engaging and interesting manner” (Yang: ¶ 0025). Furthermore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Still, Fox/Yang do not explicitly teach the recommendation being based in part of the location received from the wearable device. However, Negi teaches receiving a location from a wearable device of an audience member as per above (Negi: Col. 7: 5-22 showing audience reaction information received from a wearable device, where in Col. 7: 23-31, Col. 8: 13-24 the received information includes location data; also see Col. 5: 3 – Col. 6: 5), and that a recommendation provided to a presenter is based at least in part on the locations included in the feedback data received from the wearable device of each audience member (Negi: Col. 5: 63 – Col. 6: 5 showing “the feedback 234 may provide recommendations based on input data , such as location data 214…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included receiving and using location data to provide recommendations to a presenter of Negi in the virtual presentation and feedback system of Fox/Yang/Negi with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the limitations above.
Fox, as modified above, further teaches:
and communicating, by the computer program, the recommendation to the presenter electronic device (Fox: ¶ 0060, ¶ 0067 showing generating and presenting suggestions and visual prompts to the presenter via GUI on the presenter device for improving the scaled user reactions, which as per ¶ 0067 may include suggestions for the presenter to improve reactions and experiences associated with participants in the target audience such as paying more attention to particular sections of the audience or, emphasizing certain features of the presentation, etc.)
Claim Interpretation Note: Claim 1 as currently recited refers to a “mixed reality presentation,” “mixed reality content,” and “mixed reality headset,” which under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, includes augmented reality or virtual reality content. (See 7/11/2024 specification: ¶ 0029 “The audience may consume the presented content in a mixed-reality headset and see the content as if it is placed in their physical room (e.g., on a table, attached to a wall) or in a fully virtual environment. Presented digital content include 2D/3D data visualization, 3D models, figures, tables, text, images, etc.”; ¶ 0038 “Audience 110 may be provided with headset 115, which may provide virtual reality or augmented reality to audience 110…”; ¶ 0006 “In one embodiment, the content may include augmented reality or virtual reality content”; and ¶ 0007 “In one embodiment, the content may include three-dimensional content”). Therefore, the use of an AR/VR headset to display a virtual environment (as described by Fox, for example) in a virtual environment that mimics a real-life conference with a presenter reads on the “mixed-reality” aspects, under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 2: Fox/Yang/Negi teach claim 1. Fox, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the mixed reality content comprises augmented reality or virtual reality content (Fox: ¶ 0041 “According to one embodiment, the virtual environment 200 may include users virtually participating in a virtual event such as a virtual conference/presentation. As previously described, a virtual environment 200 may be accessed by a user via a computing device such as wearable device including a virtual reality (VR) headset”)
Claim 3: Fox/Yang/Negi teach claim 1. Fox, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the mixed reality content comprises three-dimensional content (Fox: ¶ 0015 showing “a virtual environment may include a network of 3D virtual worlds that may mimic real-life social connections and experiences using such computing technology. For example, a virtual event may include a virtual conference conducted in the virtual environment. The virtual event may include a presenter represented by a virtual avatar who is presenting and speaking with other virtual avatars representative of the audience/attendees in the virtual environment”; also see Fig. 2 showing the 3D virtual environment)
Claim 4: Fox/Yang/Negi teach claim 1. Fox, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the feedback comprises an eye gaze/focal point, a gesture, a movement, and/or audio (Fox: ¶ 0053 “detected user actions and user reactions that may include detected gestures, movements, and facial expressions of a user/avatar… assistance program 160 may detect whether a participant of the target audience, and/or a virtual avatar associated with the participant, is viewing the presenter during the presentation (for example, by using a camera to detect eye movement and/or tracking an avatar looking at or away from the presenter), detect certain movements or gestures (such as stretching, fiddling, typing, etc.), detect facial expressions (such as yawning, sleeping, emoting boredom, emoting dislike, emoting happiness, etc.)”)
Claim 7: Fox/Yang/Negi teach claim 1. Fox, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the recommendation comprises additional content to present (Fox: ¶ 0065 showing “virtual presentation assistance program 160 may additionally use this as additional weight in marking topics that the presenter may want to re-emphasize… prompt the presenter to re-emphasize that important feature to make sure the feature did not get missed by a key person in the audience”)
Claim 8: Fox/Yang/Negi teach claim 7. With respect to the following limitations, Fox teaches identifying additional content (topics to re-emphasize) as per claim 7 above, but Fox does not explicitly teach the following. However, Yang teaches:
wherein the additional content is identified using the large language model (Yang: ¶ 0035, ¶ 0024-0025, ¶ 0037 showing generating additional content pertaining to a virtual presentation such as a transcript, planned gestures/emotions during the presentation, or additional slides for the presentation, using an LLM)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the identification/generation of additional presentation content using an LLM of Yang in the virtual presentation and feedback system of Fox/Yang/Negi with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “accurately generate a transcript of an appropriate length for the presenter” (Yang: ¶ 0035) and “improve the user engagement by causing the virtual presenter to react to the presentation content in an engaging and interesting manner” (Yang: ¶ 0025). Furthermore, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 10: Fox/Yang/Negi teach claim 1. Fox, as modified above, further teaches:
communicating, by the computer program, an audience view to the presenter electronic device, wherein the presenter electronic device displays the audience view (Fox: ¶ 0068 “Furthermore, according to one embodiment, the virtual presentation assistance program 160 may enable a presenter to select prepopulated camera waypoints so that the presenter may have different viewpoints of the target audience and be able to view what the audience is seeing as the presenter presents”)
Claim 11: See the rejection of claim 1 above teaching analogous limitations. Fox further teaches: A system (Fox: ¶ 0004 “A computer system for automatically generating and displaying real-time virtual feedback to a presenter in a virtual environment corresponding to a user experience associated with a target audience in the virtual environment is provided”), comprising: an audience headset (Fox: ); a presenter electronic device for a presenter (Fox: ¶ 0041 “a virtual environment 200 may be accessed by a user via a computing device such as wearable device including a virtual reality (VR) headset”; also see ¶ 0042, ¶ 0025); and a computer program executed by an electronic device (Fox: ¶ 0004 “The computer system may include one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories”; also see ¶ 0025, ¶ 0027).
Claim 12: See the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 13: See the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claim 14: See the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claim 16: Fox/Yang/Negi teach claim 11. Fox, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the recommendation comprises adjusting a tempo of the presentation or additional content to present (Fox: ¶ 0065 showing “virtual presentation assistance program 160 may additionally use this as additional weight in marking topics that the presenter may want to re-emphasize… prompt the presenter to re-emphasize that important feature to make sure the feature did not get missed by a key person in the audience”)
Claim 17: See the rejection of claim 8 above.
Claim 19: See the rejection of claim 10 above.
Claim 20: Fox/Yang/Negi teach claim 19. Fox, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein the presenter electronic device comprises a presenter headset (Fox: ¶ 0041, ¶ 0043-0044 showing AR or VR headset of presenter)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240311878 A1 to Fox et al. (Fox) in view of US 20240371089 A1 to Yang et al. (Yang), further in view of US 9843768 B1 to Negi et al. (Negi), and further in view of US 20170279860 A1 to Agarwal et al. (Agarwal).
Claim 6: Fox/Yang/Negi teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, while Fox teaches providing recommendations to the presenter as per claim 1 above, Fox/Yang/Negi do not explicitly teach the suggestion include adjusting a tempo of the presentation. However, Agarwal teaches:
wherein the recommendation comprises adjusting a tempo of the presentation (Agarwal: ¶ 0055 showing pace feedback indicator provides suggestions to a presenter to adjust the speed, i.e. tempo, of a presentation based on the received feedback)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the feedback-based recommendation to adjust a tempo of a presentation of Agarwal in the virtual presentation and feedback system of Fox/Yang/Negi with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to address the problems that “Effectively managing the pace of a presentation or web-based collaboration depends on a number of factors. When information is shared in a presentation the difficulty associated with effectively managing pace increases dramatically” (Agarwal: ¶ 0002).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240311878 A1 to Fox et al. (Fox) in view of US 20240371089 A1 to Yang et al. (Yang), further in view of US 9843768 B1 to Negi et al. (Negi), and further in view of US 20190232500 A1 to Bennett et al. (Bennett).
Claim 9: Fox/Yang/Negi teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Fox/Yang/Negi do not explicitly teach the following, however, Bennett teaches:
identifying, by the computer program, a portion of the mixed reality content being presented (Fox: ¶ 0078 “a user (e.g., an author or a presenter) can use a 3D drawing to highlight aspects of a 3D presentation, or otherwise illustrate concepts in 3D”); and
causing, by the computer program, the audience mixed reality headset to display the portion of the mixed reality content as highlighted or emphasized (Bennett: ¶ 0078 as per above showing drawing to identify and highlighting an aspect of the 3D presentation, wherein as per ¶ 0079 “drawing with light mode has been toggled during a 3D presentation in presentation mode. Presenter 410 has an AR headset which projects virtual images into the room, including virtual teleprompter 430. In FIG. 4A, presenter 410 moves her hand to position 412. In this embodiment, presenter 410 initiates a drawing gesture by pinching her fingers and moving her hand through position 413 in FIG. 4B. At substantially the same time, visualization trail 420 is rendered in the headsets of all users who joined the 3D presentation”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the functions for highlighting aspects using a drawing tool which is rendered on the headsets of the users who have joined the presentation, and of Bennett in the virtual presentation and feedback system of Fox/Yang/Negi with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to “provide simple and efficient methods and systems for authoring and presenting 3D presentations that choreograph behaviors of 3D assets so each user device can project corresponding virtual images, and each user can see the same asset behavior at substantially the same time” (Bennett: ¶ 0026), and such that “communication can be improved by authoring and presenting 3D presentations…improving the efficiency of both expression and perception…allowing the audience to experience 3D information from different perspectives, and to interact with a 3D object, facilitates hands-on participation that improves learning and engagement” (Bennett: ¶ 0025).
Claim 18: See the rejection of claim 9 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights