DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed 8/8/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0323986 (“Paul”), in view of Scott, U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0065015 (“Scott”).
With regard to Claim 1, Paul teaches a deliberation experience system, comprising:
a memory storing processor-executable instructions of a deliberation platform; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory and configured to execute the processor-executable instructions from the memory (Fig. 2), the one or more processors configured, when executing the instructions, to:
generate and provide a manager dashboard of the deliberation platform to a manager user device, wherein the manager dashboard is configured to present, on the manager user device, a list of participant user devices in a plurality of forums of the deliberation platform ([0050] describes that an interface screen enables a user to edit an existing discussion forum, or create a new forum, as well as search existing forums and select from search results. [0052] describes that users and user groups are assigned to created forums);
receive, via the manager dashboard, a first selection from the manager user device requesting assignment of a respective set of the participant user devices to each respective forum of the plurality of forums, and in response, communicatively couple the respective set of the participant user devices to each respective forum ([0052] describes that users and groups of users are assigned to forums through the interface. [0054] describes that permissions are granted to users and groups, thereby assigning accessible content types which users can access through their devices); and
present, via the manager dashboard, the respective representation of each respective forum on the manager dashboard ([0050] describes that forums can be created, edited, or searched and selected by an operator of the system, thereby presenting to the operator the respective forums).
Paul, in view of Scott teaches a dashboard configured to present a list of issue guides with topics for discussion and instructions to receive, via the manager dashboard, a second selection from the manager user device selecting an issue guide from the list of issue guides, and in response, instruct a computer-automated moderator of the deliberation platform to moderate the discussions in the plurality of forums. Paul shows at Fig. 5 that a forum editing interface includes the ability to search for and assign one or more topics to a forum. Scott teaches at [0032] that an initiator can select an outline template from among multiple templates for a particular topic. [0031] describes that a decision facilitator presents the options to, and obtains selections from, the members of the group)
Scott also teaches wherein moderating comprises: transmitting each of the topics of the selected issue guide to the respective set of the participant user devices of each respective forum, processing received responses from the respective set of the participant user devices associated with each respective forum, and generating a respective representation of each respective forum based on the processing of the received responses. [0031] that the decision facilitator presents options to the members of the group of users, potentially in an iterative manner, in order to obtain consensus between the users about the decision. [0037] describes that the options are configured by an initiator to be presented to the group for the group to make selections, and [0040] describes that the system also facilitates additional discussion among the group members).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Paul to include the group based decision making that is described in Scott. The background of Scott describes that limitations in collaboration can detract from the decision-making process. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by improving the decision-making process that can be carried out in collaboration systems such as those described in Paul.
With regard to Claim 3, Paul suggests that the one or more processors are configured, when executing the instructions, to present an interactive graphical visualization in each respective forum comprising data collected from polling the respective set of the participant user devices of each respective forum. [0047] describes that content permissions for each of the forums contemplates the ability to post and view polls, where one of skill in the art that online polling frequently includes the ability for users to see polling results. Therefore, one of skill in the art would understand that posting polls to forums would enable viewing of visualizations of results, in some common embodiments.
With regard to Claim 4, Paul teaches that each forum comprises a user interface presented on a display of each participant user device of the respective set of the participant user devices, and wherein the user interface comprises a graphical modeling window that presents visualizations and a chat window to collect text-based responses from each participant user device of the respective set. [0053] describes that content permissions can include permission to read and write questions, read and write answers, and view videos posted within the forum, thereby providing visualizations in the form of relevant video content.
With regard to Claim 11, Paul teaches that the first selection comprises an indication of a random assignment type or one or more manual selections of forum assignments. [0050] describes that an interface screen enables a user to edit an existing discussion forum, or create a new forum, as well as search existing forums and select from search results. [0052] describes that users and user groups are assigned to created forums through inputs to the dashboard assigning users or groups to a forum.
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul, in view pf Scott, and in view of Chew, et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,627,006 (“Chew”).
With regard to Claim 2, Chew teaches the one or more processors are configured, when executing the instructions, to: receive, via the manager dashboard, a third selection from the manager user device indicative of an allotted time period for deliberation; automatically determine a respective portion of the allotted time period for each of the topics of the selected issue guide; and associate each topic of the selected issue guide with the respective portion of the allotted time period.
Chew at Col. 2, line 63 – Col. 3, line 15 describe that a meeting can be established with a set time. Individual agenda items can have times assigned thereto, and the virtual meeting assistant can determine the times and assign each item time individually. The virtual assistant can also request comments or other follow-up action items as part of each agenda item.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Chew with Paul and Scott. The background of Chew describes that some users may not be comfortable using existing meeting tools, and the described virtual assistant helps solve this problem. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling users not comfortable with meeting tools to take full advantage of such tools through a virtual assistant.
With regard to Claim 20, Paul teaches non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of a deliberation experience system, the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium including instructions executable by one or more processors (Fig. 2), comprising instructions to:
generate a deliberation platform including a plurality of forums and a manager dashboard to facilitate monitoring deliberation in each forum of the plurality of forums, the manager dashboard presented on a manager user device ([0050] describes that an interface screen enables a user to edit an existing discussion forum, or create a new forum, as well as search existing forums and select from search results. [0052] describes that users and user groups are assigned to created forums);
receive a first input from the manager user device indicative of assigning a respective set of participant user devices to each forum and communicatively couple the respective set of participant user devices to each forum ([0052] describes that users and groups of users are assigned to forums through the interface. [0054] describes that permissions are granted to users and groups, thereby assigning accessible content types which users can access through their devices);
Paul, in view of Scott teaches a second input from the manager user device indicative of a selected issue guide of a plurality of issue guides, the selected issue guide including a plurality of discussion topics; instructions to instruct a computer-automated moderator to initiate a guided discussion on each forum by progressing through each discussion topic of the selected issue guide in each forum; and collect and present data associated with participant opinions from the respective set of participant user devices on one or more proposed actions of the selected issue guide on each forum.
Paul shows at Fig. 5 that a forum editing interface includes the ability to search for and assign one or more topics to a forum. Scott teaches at [0032] that an initiator can select an outline template from among multiple templates for a particular topic. [0031] describes that a decision facilitator presents the options to, and obtains selections from, the members of the group, potentially in an iterative manner, in order to obtain consensus between the users about the decision. [0037] describes that the options are configured by an initiator to be presented to the group for the group to make selections, and [0040] describes that the system also facilitates additional discussion among the group members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Paul to include the group based decision making that is described in Scott. The background of Scott describes that limitations in collaboration can detract from the decision-making process. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by improving the decision-making process that can be carried out in collaboration systems such as those described in Paul.
Chew teaches instructions to receive a third input from the manager user device indicative of an allotted time period for deliberation, each discussion topic of the selected issue guide being associated with a respective portion of the allotted time period. Col. 2, line 63 – Col. 3, line 15 describe that a meeting can be established with a set time. Individual agenda items can have times assigned thereto, and the virtual meeting assistant can determine the times and assign each item time individually. The virtual assistant can also request comments or other follow-up action items as part of each agenda item.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Chew with Paul and Scott. The background of Chew describes that some users may not be comfortable using existing meeting tools, and the described virtual assistant helps solve this problem. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling users not comfortable with meeting tools to take full advantage of such tools through a virtual assistant.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul, in view of Scott, and in view of Ragade, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2018/0218625 (“Ragade”).
With regard to Claim 5, Ragade teaches that the one or more processors are configured, when executing the instructions, to: identify a respective participant user device of a participant having an activity level above an upper threshold within a particular forum of the plurality of forums; and provide, via the particular forum, a message to the respective participant user device to request that the participant pause for input from other participants.
Ragade at [0032]-[0033] describes that a system can bucketize users to ranges reflecting experience levels, depending on a score calculated therefor. The score is calculated based on a level of engagement measured as an amount of activity on a learning platform, including an online forum and other online discussions. [0036]-[0037] describes that questions can target users based on experience levels, where a question message can be paused and sent to higher experience users after lower experience users have a chance to answer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Ragade with Paul and Scott. The background of Ragade describes that online discussions can often be dominated by a small subset of active users, instead of all users participating. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ragade with Paul and Scott, to improve user experience by giving users with lower participation rates chances to meaningfully participate in online discussion forum.
With regard to Claim 6, Ragade teaches that the one or more processors are configured, when executing the instructions, to: identify one or more participant user devices of participants having an activity level below a lower threshold within a particular forum of the plurality of forums; and provide, via the particular forum, a message to the one or more participant user devices to request input therefrom.
Ragade at [0032]-[0033] describes that a system can bucketize users to ranges reflecting experience levels, depending on a score calculated therefor. The score is calculated based on a level of engagement measured as an amount of activity on a learning platform, including an online forum and other online discussions. [0036]-[0037] describes that questions can target users based on experience levels, where lower experience users can be sent a question first, to have a chance to answer before other more experienced users.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Ragade with Paul and Scott. The background of Ragade describes that online discussions can often be dominated by a small subset of active users, instead of all users participating. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ragade with Paul and Scott, to improve user experience by giving users with lower participation rates chances to meaningfully participate in online discussion forum.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul, in view of Scott, and in view of Nicholas, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2007/0043766 (“Nicholas”).
With regard to Claim 7, Paul, in view of Nicholas teaches that the one or more processors are configured, when executing the instructions, to: identify one or more received responses from the respective set of the participant user devices as including a question; determine whether an answer to the question is available based on querying a database of previous forum logs; in response to determining an answer to the question is available, provide a reply to the respective set of the participant user devices including the answer; and in response to determining the answer to the question is not available, provide an alert to the manager dashboard indicative of the question.
Paul teaches at [0053] that a forum and its associated permissions can include permissions regarding reading and writing both questions and answers. Nicholas teaches at [0161]-[0163] that a user can submit a question by querying the system; if the submitted question has a satisfactory answer, the user has the answer returned and can use it. If the user determines any answers are not the answer to the question, the user can submit the question to be answered. An expert user can access a feed to answer questions, where one of skill in the art would understand that a feed includes some sort of indication or alert of the question needing an answer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Nicholas with Paul and Scott. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by providing the additional ability for users to submit and receive answers for questions from qualified expert users that are part of a particular forum.
Claims 8-10, 13, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul, in view of Scott, and in view of Underwood, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0345002 (“Underwood”).
With regard to Claim 8, Underwood teaches that the one or more processors are configured, when executing the instructions, to: analyze each received response from the respective set of the participant user devices to determine whether prohibited language is included therein; identify one or more received responses from a respective participant user device as including prohibited language; and provide a reply to the respective participant user device to address the prohibited language. [0082] describes that a discussion text can be monitored for offensive words, and notify the user regarding the detection.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Underwood with Paul and Scott. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for reducing or eliminating obscene or offensive language.
With regard to Claim 9, Underwood teaches that the one or more processors are configured, when executing the instructions, to: analyze each received response from the respective set of the participant user devices to determine a sentiment of discussion in a particular forum; identify one or more responses from the respective set of the participant user devices as indicative of a decline in the sentiment in the particular forum; provide an alert to the manager dashboard indicative of the decline in the sentiment; and provide a manager response to the particular forum to address the decline in the sentiment. [0082] describes that the system can analyze discussion chats, and notify an administrative team if comments are straying from the topic or including personal attacks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Underwood with Paul and Scott. One of skill in the art would have sought the moderation, to improve user experience by enabling moderators to ensure discussions are productive and stay on topic.
With regard to Claim 10, Underwood teaches that the one or more processors are configured, when executing the instructions, to: flag an event for manager intervention in a particular forum, wherein the event comprises a novel question, an abusive response, a declining sentiment of discussion, an overactive participant, an underactive participant, or an underactive group of participants; provide an alert to the manager dashboard in response to identifying the event; and receive a corrective action or a manager response to the event from the manager dashboard. [0082] describes that the system can analyze discussion chats, and notify an administrative team if comments are straying from the topic or including personal attacks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Underwood with Paul and Scott. One of skill in the art would have sought the moderation, to improve user experience by enabling moderators to ensure discussions are productive and stay on topic.
With regard to Claim 13, Paul teaches a process for managing a deliberation experience system for participant engagement, the process comprising:
generating a deliberation platform having a plurality of forums communicatively coupled to a plurality of participant user devices, each forum of the plurality of forums including a chat window that displays messages from a subset of participant user devices ([0050] describes that an interface screen enables a user to edit an existing discussion forum, or create a new forum, as well as search existing forums and select from search results. [0052] describes that users and user groups are assigned to created forums. [0033]-[0035] describe that community pages and forums include chat capabilities, such as comment threads, posts, etc. that are part of forums and community pages);
in response to identifying a question in at least one message of the one or more messages, providing a first response to the question in the chat window of an associated forum of the plurality of forums ([0047] describes that users are able to pose questions and answers within the forum);
Underwood teaches receiving one or more messages in the chat window of each forum from the subset of participant user devices to enable automated moderation of discussion in each forum; in response to identifying a prohibited phrase in at least one message of the one or more messages, providing a second response to the prohibited phrase in the chat window of an associated forum of the plurality of forums. [0082] describes that a discussion text can be monitored for offensive words, and notify the user regarding the detection.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Underwood with Paul. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for reducing or eliminating obscene or offensive language.
Paul, in view of Scott teaches receiving an indication of a selected issue guide from a manager user device; providing an introduction portion and a first topic of the selected issue guide to the chat window of each forum; in response to a subsequent topic of the selected issue guide remaining, providing the subsequent topic to the chat window of each forum; and in response to no subsequent topic of the selected issue guide remaining, providing a conclusion portion of the selected issue guide to the chat window of each forum.
Paul shows at Fig. 5 that a forum editing interface includes the ability to search for and assign one or more topics to a forum. Scott teaches at [0032] that an initiator can select an outline template from among multiple templates for a particular topic. [0031] describes that a decision facilitator presents the options to, and obtains selections from, the members of the group, thereby providing an introductory first topic of a guide, subsequent topics, and a concluding topic according to the selected outline template.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Paul and Underwood to include the group based decision making that is described in Scott. The background of Scott describes that limitations in collaboration can detract from the decision-making process. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by improving the decision-making process that can be carried out in collaboration systems such as those described in Paul.
With regard to Claim 15, Underwood teaches identifying at least one message of the one or more messages as indicative of a declining sentiment in a particular forum; and providing an alert to a manager dashboard indicative of the declining sentiment in the particular forum. [0082] describes that the system can analyze discussion chats, and notify an administrative team if comments are straying from the topic or including personal attacks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Underwood with Paul and Scott. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling for reducing or eliminating obscene or offensive language.
With regard to Claim 18, Paul teaches that the deliberation platform comprises a manager dashboard presented on a manager user device, and wherein the manager dashboard comprises a user interface having a panoptic forum view of the plurality of forums. Fig. 7 shows a tab called “forums,” and [0048] describes that users have access to a plurality of forums, thereby enabling users to view all forums of which they are a member.
With regard to Claim 19, Scott teaches identifying at least one forum as having participant user devices associated with participants with at least a threshold familiarity with the deliberation experience system; and customizing a moderator script for the at least one forum to include fewer instructions for guiding interactions on the deliberation platform. [0037] describes that a user customizes the content of the outline for guiding a decision process. Therefore, the script used to present options to users can be customized to guide interactions at a level matching users’ experience.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Paul and Underwood to include the group based decision making that is described in Scott. The background of Scott describes that limitations in collaboration can detract from the decision-making process. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by improving the decision-making process that can be carried out in collaboration systems such as those described in Paul.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul, in view of Scott, and in view of King, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2012/0278324 (“King”).
With regard to Claim 12, King teaches that the first selection comprises an indication of a diverse sorting type, and wherein the one or more processors are configured, when executing the instructions, to: retrieve one or more variables associated with each participant of the list of participant user devices from a participant database; and select the respective set of the participant user devices for each forum to cause a first distribution of the one or more variables associated with the respective set of the participant user devices to match a second distribution of the one or more variables associated with the list of participant user devices. [0028] describes that policies can be established so that values for participant characteristics can match an associated distribution rule.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine King with Paul and Scott. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling curation of discussion groups to potentially produce better and more useful discussions.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul, in view of Scott, in view of Underwood, and in view of Nicholas.
With regard to Claim 14, Paul, in view of Nicholas teaches in response to identifying a second question in at least one message of the one or more messages and determining that an answer to the second question is not available, providing an alert to a manager dashboard indicative of the second question. Paul teaches at [0053] that a forum and its associated permissions can include permissions regarding reading and writing both questions and answers. Nicholas teaches at [0161]-[0163] that a user can submit a question by querying the system; if the submitted question has a satisfactory answer, the user has the answer returned and can use it. If the user determines any answers are not the answer to the question, the user can submit the question to be answered. An expert user can access a feed to answer questions, where one of skill in the art would understand that a feed includes some sort of indication or alert of the question needing an answer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Nicholas with Paul, Scott and Underwood. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by providing the additional ability for users to submit and receive answers for questions from qualified expert users that are part of a particular forum.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul, in view of Scott, in view of Underwood, and in view of Ragade.
With regard to Claim 16, Ragade teaches identifying a participant user device of the subset of participants as being associated with a participant having an activity level outside a threshold activity level range; and providing a message to the participant user device to direct the activity level to be within the threshold activity level range. [0032]-[0033] describes that a system can bucketize users to ranges reflecting experience levels, depending on a score calculated therefor. The score is calculated based on a level of engagement measured as an amount of activity on a learning platform, including an online forum and other online discussions. [0036]-[0037] describes that questions can target users based on experience levels, where lower experience users can be sent a question first, to have a chance to answer before other more experienced users.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine Ragade with Paul, Underwood and Scott. The background of Ragade describes that online discussions can often be dominated by a small subset of active users, instead of all users participating. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Ragade with Paul, Underwood and Scott, to improve user experience by giving users with lower participation rates chances to meaningfully participate in online discussion forum.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul, in view of Scott, in view of Underwood, and in view of King.
With regard to Claim 17, King teaches distributing the plurality of participant user devices into the plurality of forums to form the subset of participant user devices for each forum via a diverse sorting algorithm or a random sorting algorithm. [0028] describes that policies can be established so that values for participant characteristics can match an associated distribution rule.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to combine King with Paul, Underwood and Scott. One of skill in the art would have sought the combination, to improve user experience by enabling curation of discussion groups to potentially produce better and more useful discussions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
6/9/2026
Prosecution Insights