DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the foreign application as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b). The Examiner notes that the objection to the Foreign Priority is maintained until the submission of the certified copy of the Korean Application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
3. Claims 1-2, 8, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daredia et al. (US 2020/0403817 A1).
As in Claim 1, Daredia teaches an artificial intelligence-based to-do recommendation device (FIG. 7, pars. 141-143, content management system 102 comprises computing devices such as a computing device 700 for generating action items using machine-learning model), the device comprising:
a memory (pars. 141-143, a memory 704 and storage device 706); and
a processor electrically connected to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to (pars. 141-143, a processor 702 retrieves information or instructions for execution to perform actions):
receive a user request for generation or retrieval of meeting minutes from a user terminal (FIGS. 4A-4E and 5A-5B, pars. 76, 98-99, 112-113, the system receives a user request (e.g., selecting a summary option 428 as shown in FIG. 4D) for generating/providing a meeting summary from client devices (e.g., a client device 400)), generate the meeting minutes or a meeting minutes list including the meeting minutes according to the user request (FIGS. 4A-4E and 5A-5B, pars. 76, 98-99, 112-113, the system displays the meeting summary 430 with the request), generate to-do recommendations related to the contents of the meeting minutes through an artificial intelligence model when a to-do recommendation request related to the meeting minutes is received from the user terminal (FIGS. 3, 4A-4E and 5A-5B, pars. 36, 41, 67-69, 76, 98-99, 112-113, the system generate actions items in the meeting summary using a machine-learning model (i.e., an artificial intelligence model), which is generated with the user request), and provide a to-do recommendation list including selection options for each to-do recommendation to the user terminal (FIG. 4E, pars. 98-99, 112-115, client device displays action items 424 within the meeting summary 430 as shown in FIG. 4E and each of the action items includes a selection option (e.g., checkbox)).
As in Claim 2, Daredia teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Daredia further teaches that the processor receives from the user terminal a conversation recording file capturing a conversation among work participants regarding the meeting contents along with a user request for generation of meeting minutes, generates conversation text related to the meeting contents by converting the conversation recording file into text, and generates meeting minutes including a summary of the conversation text and selection options for each to-do recommendation (pars. 19, 28, 36, 54-55, 98-99, 103, the content management system 102 receives audio data corresponding to the meeting from one or more client devices 106a-106n that record the meeting audio data using natural language processing and generates a transcription of the meeting conversation. Based on the transcription, the system generates meeting insights, including a meeting summary 430 having an overall summary 432, highlights 434, and action items 436).
As in Claim 8, Daredia teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Daredia further teaches that when a user selection is input through the selection option for each to-do recommendation, the processor generates a task related to the corresponding to-do recommendation (pars. 36, 105, 117-119).
As in Claim 10, Daredia teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. Daredia further teaches that when a plurality of selection options are selected by the user who has entered the user selection, the processor sequentially generates tasks for each of the corresponding to-do recommendations. (Daredia, pars. 36, 105, 117-119)
Claim 16 is substantially similar to Claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
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, 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.
4. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daredia et al. (US 2020/0403817 A1) in view of Mano et al. (US 2021/0294483 A1)
As in Claim 3, Daredia teaches all the limitations of Claim 2. Daredia does not appear to explicitly teach that the processor transmits the conversation recording file to an external Speech-To-Text (STT) server and receives the conversation text from the STT server.
However, in the same field of the invention, Mano teaches that the processor transmits the conversation recording file to an external Speech-To-Text (STT) server and receives the conversation text from the STT server (pars. 290-293, 298-300, a collaboration work assisting system or a sharing assistant server 11 transmits recorded audio data to an external voice-to-text (VTT, which is similar to STT) conversation server 13).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for generating the meeting summary including action items, as taught by Daredia, and to provide the way to convert audio data of the meeting via the VTT server, as taught by Mano. The motivation is to convert recorded conversation audio into text data for easier access, processing, and generation of related content or actions.
5. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daredia et al. (US 2020/0403817 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2022/0198403 A1)
As in Claim 4, Daredia teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Daredia does not teach that the processor generates the meeting minutes list in response to a retrieval request from any one of work participants on a chat room or a meeting map for management of meeting minutes in which the work participants participate.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Chen teaches that the processor generates the meeting minutes list in response to a retrieval request from any one of work participants on a chat room or a meeting map for management of meeting minutes in which the work participants participate (FIGS. 2-4, pars. 31-35, 62-66, 72-74, the system generates and displays multiple meeting minutes, allowing users (or participants) to select or access a selected meeting minutes).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for generating the meeting summary including action items, as taught by Daredia, and to generate multiple meeting minutes for user’s selection, s taught by Chen. The motivation is to enable users to efficiently retrieve relevant meeting information from multiple automatically generated meeting minutes.
6. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daredia et al. (US 2020/0403817 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US 2018/0101281 A1).
As in Claim 5, Daredia teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Daredia does not teach that wherein, if the meeting minutes correspond to general meeting minutes, the processor adds the to-do recommendation list to the meeting minutes and converts the corresponding meeting minutes into to-do meeting minutes.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Nelson teaches that wherein, if the meeting minutes correspond to general meeting minutes, the processor adds the to-do recommendation list to the meeting minutes and converts the corresponding meeting minutes into to-do meeting minutes (pars. 171-172, 204, 211-212, the system can create a new action item and add it to an electronic record for he meeting. The system can also display a proposed action item with controls that allow participants to confirm or cancel the creation of the action item).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for generating the meeting summary including action items, as taught by Daredia, and to add the action items based on analysis of the meeting content, as taught by Nelson. The motivation is to capture, organize, and track tasks or action items identified during meetings to improve follow-up and completion.
7. Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daredia et al. (US 2020/0403817 A1) in view of Nelson et al. (US 2018/0101281 A1) and further in view of Bradley et al. (US 2010/0332280 A1).
As in Claim 6, Daredia-Nelson teaches all the limitations of Claim 5. Daredia-Nelson does not teach that wherein, if a task is generated for a specific to-do recommendation included in the to-do meeting minutes, the processor removes the specific to-do recommendation from the to-do recommendation list.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Bradley teaches that wherein, if a task is generated for a specific to-do recommendation included in the to-do meeting minutes, the processor removes the specific to-do recommendation from the to-do recommendation list (pars. 55-57, 63, and 70, task items can be removed from the to-do list based on the task completion).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for generating the meeting summary including action items, as taught by Daredia, in view of Mano’s teachings, and to remove the tasks from the to-do list, as taught by Bradley. The motivation is to automatically keep the to-do list organized and up to date by removing completed or no longer relevant tasks, reducing manual management effort and helping users focus on remaking tasks.
As in Claim 7, Daredia-Nelson and Bradley teach all the limitations of Claim 6. Daredia-Nelson and Bradley further teach that wherein, when all to-do recommendations are removed from the to-do recommendation list, the processor converts the to-do meeting minutes into the general meeting minutes (Bradley, pars. 55-57, 63, and 70).
8. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daredia et al. (US 2020/0403817 A1) in view of Pandey et al. (US 11095468 B1).
As in Claim 9, Daredia teaches all the limitations of Claim 8. Daredia does not teach that the processor sets the user who has entered the user selection as a task assigner of the task and sets the corresponding to-do recommendation as the contents of the task.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Pandey teaches that the processor sets the user who has entered the user selection as a task assigner of the task and sets the corresponding to-do recommendation as the contents of the task (FIGS. 3A-3C, pars. 62-65, 82, 88, 94, 100, a user can specify a task and assign it to one or more target users in the meeting).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for generating the meeting summary including action items, as taught by Daredia, and to provide the way for a user to assign tasks to target users, as taught by Pandey. The motivation is to allow users to assign, track, and manage tasks from meeting discussions to ensure actions are completed.
9. Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daredia et al. (US 2020/0403817 A1) in view of Boucheron et al. (US 2023/0078154 A1).
As in Claim 11, Daredia teaches all the limitations of Claim 1. Daredia further teaches that the processor receives the user's voice file related to the meeting contents from the user terminal, recognizes the speech within the voice file to generate a script and a summary message converted to text (see rejection of claims 1-2).
Daredia does not appear to explicitly teach displaying the summary message as a conversation message in a chat room selected by the user.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Boucheron teaches displaying the summary message as a conversation message in a chat room selected by the user (pars. 73-77 and 95, the system displays a meeting summary component or meeting related information within a chat or messaging interface).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for generating the meeting summary including action items, as taught by Daredia, and to display the meeting summary or meeting related information with the cat or messaging interface, as taught by Boucheron. The motivation is provide participants with convenient access to meeting details and related assets, such as recordings, transcripts and shared files, directly within the chat interface.
As in Claim 12, Daredia-Boucheron teaches all the limitations of Claim 11. Daredia-Boucheron further teaches that the processor receives the user's speech through streaming from the user terminal in real-time and generates the voice file (Daredia, pars. 19, 28-29, 90, 37).
As in Claim 13, Daredia-Boucheron teaches all the limitations of Claim 11. Daredia-Boucheron further teaches that the processor inputs the voice file into a pre-built speech recognition model to generate the script and the summary message, respectively (Daredia, pars. 19, 28-29, 90, 37).
10. Claim 14 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daredia et al. (US 2020/0403817 A1) in view of Boucheron et al. (US 2023/0078154 A1) and further in view of Walsh et al. (US 2019/0347313 A1)
As in Claim 14, Daredia-Boucheron teaches all the limitations of Claim 11. Daredia-Boucheron does not teach that the processor generates a tag associated with the summary message to combine the tag with the summary message and provides a retrieval function for the summary message through the tag.
However, in the same filed of the investor, Walsh teaches that the processor generates a tag associated with the summary message to combine the tag with the summary message and provides a retrieval function for the summary message through the tag (pars. 7-8, 94, 57-70, 72-76, tagged notes or tags can be generated and displayed. Tags may trigger retrieval, organization, or other actions. The tags are linked to sales note records, and the system provides structured views of sales notes based on the tags).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for generating the meeting summary including action items, as taught by Daredia, in view of Boucheron’s teachings, and to provide the way to receive information of the tags, as taught by Walsh. The motivation is to easily retrieve and view information related to content via tags
11. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daredia et al. (US 2020/0403817 A1) in view of Boucheron et al. (US 2023/0078154 A1) and further in view of Katis et al. (US 2010/0125791 A1).
As in Claim 15, Daredia-Boucheron teaches all the limitations of Claim 11. Daredia-Boucheron does not teach that the processor assigns and stores a favorites function to each conversation message and provides a list of conversation messages to which the favorites functions have been assigned through a favorites page.
However, in the same filed of the invention, Katis teaches that the processor assigns and stores a favorites function to each conversation message and provides a list of conversation messages to which the favorites functions have been assigned through a favorites page (pars. 36 and 54, a user can select preferred or important conversations and contacts to add them to favorite lists (e.g., a favorite conversations list 18 and a favorite contacts list 20)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system and method for generating the meeting summary including action items, as taught by Daredia, in view of Boucheron’s teachings, and to provide the way to add conversations into the favorite list, as taught by Katis. The motivation is to provide users with convenient access to frequently used conversations, contacts, or messages by allowing them to mark items as favorites and view them in a favorite list.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rinna Yi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7752 and fax number is (571) 270-8752. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached on (571) 272-4034.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RINNA YI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179
Prosecution Insights