DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to the application filed on August 27, 2024. Claims 1-20 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
The drawings filed on August 27, 2024 are accepted.
Examiner’s Note about the Format of 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Generally, limitations of a claim are reproduced identically and followed by examiner’s explanation with citation from prior art in Italic enclosed by a parenthesis, (), for each limitation. In examiner’s explanation, the mapping of the key elements of a limitation to the disclosed elements of prior art is shown by stating the disclosed element immediately followed by the claimed element inside a parenthesis. Specific quotation from prior art is delineated with quotation mark, ““. If primary art fails to teach a limitation or part of the limitation, the limitation or the part of the limitation is placed inside double square brackets, [[ ]], for better understandability, and appropriate secondary art(s) is/are applied later addressing the deficiency of the primary art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
claim 1 recites the limitation “identifying, by the communications monitoring software, a subset of second communications based on the respective communication scores associated with the first communications”. Since the second communications is not defined in the claim, the subset of the second communications is ambiguous. It is not clear whether the second communications are part of the first communications or the second communications are different from the first communication.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 inherit the same ambiguity.
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, 5-10, 13-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20230291594 A1), hereinafter, Shim, in view of Cho (US PGPUB No. US 20220078039 A1), hereinafter, Cho.
Regarding claim 1:
Shim teaches:
A method, comprising:
identifying, by a communications monitoring software, first communications between a user and other users (Fig. 6, step 601, discloses receiving record of interaction (first communications) as explained in paragraph 0058 “At 601, an interaction record is received at a backend processor, for at least a portion of an interaction. The interaction record may be a transcript of an interaction that has taken place, an audio or video recording of an interaction that has taken place, or an audiovisual recording (i.e., a recording including both audio and video data) of an interaction that has taken place”. Fig. 2 shows interaction application 201 (communication monitoring software). );
associating, by the communications monitoring software, respective communication scores with the first communications based on respective identified communications features of the first communications (paragraph 0061 discloses associating reaction metrics (respective communication scores) for relevant portions of the interaction based on the how listener reacted to the presentation as stated “In an embodiment, the reaction metric is specific to the relevant portion of the interaction, or a subset thereof. For example (but not the only example), in an interaction, a single speaker may be presenting to other participants in the interaction, and one desires to see how the listeners (or a subset of listeners) reacted to certain part of the presentation. To do this, at the relevant point in the interaction, the reaction metric can be calculated using the audiovisual score as calculated for that portion of the interaction”. Paragraphs 0043-0048 discusses various features of the interactions that are analyzed to estimate the reaction metrics),
wherein, with respect to each audio-only communication of the first communications, the identified communications features comprise at least two of (paragraph 0024 discloses interaction can be audio only as stated “In an embodiment, analytics backend 205 receives audiovisual data, which can include a set of audio data (a representation of sound), a set of video data (a representation of images), or a set of both audio and video data. For the purposes of the present invention, one skilled in the art will understand that a set can include data, or can be a null set, including no data. Thus, audiovisual data may be a combination of audio and video data, or may only be audio data, or may only be only video data.”):
[[a number of users in the each audio-only communication]];
whether the user enabled a microphone associated with the user (paragraph 0045 discloses features include mute status of the microphone);
[[whether another user in the each audio-only communication enabled a microphone associated with the another user;
a total amount of time that the user spoke; or
a total amount of time that the another user spoke]];
identifying, by the communications monitoring software, a subset of second communications based on the respective communication scores associated with the first communications; and presenting, in a user interface, the subset of the second communications to the user (paragraph 0063 discloses identifying portions of the interactions (subset of second communications) and displaying portion of the interactions as stated (At 606, the interaction record, or a portion thereof, can be displayed, and at 607, the calculated reaction metrics that apply to a specific time or a specific statement in the interaction record can be displayed alongside the interaction record. In an embodiment, the displayed combination of the interaction record and the relevant portion of the reaction metric are juxtaposed, or displayed proximate to each other ).
Shim does not teach a number of users in the each audio-only communication; whether another user in the each audio-only communication enabled a microphone associated with the another user; a total amount of time that the user spoke; or a total amount of time that the another user spoke.
Cho teaches a number of users in the each audio-only communication; whether another user in the each audio-only communication enabled a microphone associated with the another user; a total amount of time that the user spoke; or a total amount of time that the another user spoke (paragraph 0094 disclose scoring communications based on number of participants, microphone activation time, voice speech frequency, microphone activation time of specific participant, total duration , participation period of a specific participant etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim to incorporate the teaching of Cho about scoring communications based on number of participants, microphone activation time, voice speech frequency, microphone activation time of specific participant, total duration , participation period of a specific participant. One would be motivated to do that to evaluate relative importances of various portions of the interactions more effectively (see paragraphs 0004-0005 of Shim and paragraph 0004 of Cho).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Shim does not teach wherein the respective communication scores are further based on at least one of: a duration of the each audio-only communication; or a response delay time by the another user to a message transmitted from the user in the each audio-only communication.
Cho teaches wherein the respective communication scores are further based on at least one of: a duration of the each audio-only communication; or a response delay time by the another user to a message transmitted from the user in the each audio-only communication (paragraph 0094 disclose scoring communications based on microphone activation time of a specific participant and participation period of a specific participant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim to incorporate the teaching of Cho about scoring communications based on microphone activation time of a specific participant and participation period of a specific participant. One would be motivated to do that to evaluate relative importances of various portions of the interactions more effectively (see paragraphs 0004-0005 of Shim and paragraph 0004 of Cho).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Shim does not teach wherein at least one of the first communications is a chat-based communication between the user and the another user, wherein the identified communications features of the chat-based communication comprise at least two of: a number of users in the chat-based communication; a response delay time by the another user to a message transmitted from the user in the chat-based communication; or a respective number of words in messages received from the another user.
Cho teaches wherein at least one of the first communications is a chat-based communication between the user and the another user, wherein the identified communications features of the chat-based communication comprise at least two of: a number of users in the chat-based communication; a response delay time by the another user to a message transmitted from the user in the chat-based communication; or a respective number of words in messages received from the another user (paragraph 0077 discloses the communications can be chat-based communication. Paragraph 0094 discloses scoring based on number of users, number of text chats).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim to incorporate the teaching of Cho about scoring chat-based communication. One would be motivated to do that to evaluate relative importances of various portions of the interactions more effectively (see paragraphs 0004-0005 of Shim and paragraph 0004 of Cho).
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Shim further teaches wherein at least one of the first communications is a video-based communication that includes the another user, and wherein the identified communications features of the video-based communication comprise at least two of: whether the user enabled a first video camera associated with the user (paragraph 0024 discloses interaction can be video communication. paragraph 0055 discloses video data include whether the user’s video is off).
Shim does not teach a number of users in the video-based communication; whether the another user enabled a second video camera associated with the another user; a total amount of time that the user spoke in the video-based communication; a total amount of time that the another user spoke in the video-based communication; a total focus time of the user in the video-based communication; or a total focus time of the another user in the video-based communication.
Cho teaches a number of users in the video-based communication; whether the another user enabled a second video camera associated with the another user; a total amount of time that the user spoke in the video-based communication; a total amount of time that the another user spoke in the video-based communication; a total focus time of the user in the video-based communication; or a total focus time of the another user in the video-based communication (paragraph 0077 discloses the communications can be video-based communication. Paragraph 0094 disclose scoring communications based on number of participants, total duration , participation period of a specific participant etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim to incorporate the teaching of Cho about number of participants, total duration , participation period of a specific participant. One would be motivated to do that to evaluate relative importances of various portions of the interactions more effectively (see paragraphs 0004-0005 of Shim and paragraph 0004 of Cho).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Shim does not teach wherein the respective communication scores are further based on at least one of: a duration of the video-based communication; or a response delay time by the another user to a message transmitted from the user in the video-based communication.
Cho teaches wherein the respective communication scores are further based on at least one of: a duration of the video-based communication; or a response delay time by the another user to a message transmitted from the user in the video-based communication (paragraph 0094 disclose scoring communications based on total duration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim to incorporate the teaching of Cho about scoring based on total duration. One would be motivated to do that to evaluate relative importances of various portions of the interactions more effectively (see paragraphs 0004-0005 of Shim and paragraph 0004 of Cho).
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 is directed towards a system, comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, the one or more processors configured to execute instructions of a communications monitoring software stored in the one or more memories to perform the method of claim 1 (see paragraph 0027 for system detail). Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as shown above.
Shim further teaches wherein a communication of the subset of the second communications is identified based on a sender of the communication (paragraph 0061 discloses the reaction metric is associated with originator of the reaction).
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as shown above.
Shim further teaches wherein a communication of the subset of the second communications is identified responsive to determining that the communication relates to a role of the user (paragraph 0064 grouping communication based on role of user).
Claim 13 is directed towards a system to perform the method of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 14, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as shown above.
Shim further teaches wherein the respective communication scores are based on at least two respective identified communications features of the first communications (paragraph 0045 discloses scoring based on various features).
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 8 is directed towards One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing
instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1 (see paragraph 0027 for system detail). Accordingly, it is rejected under similar rationale.
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as shown above.
Shim further teaches wherein the first communications further comprise at least one of: in-person communications; chat-based communications; or video-based communications (paragraph 0058 discloses the interaction includes video communications).
As to claim 19, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as shown above.
Shim further teaches wherein the user interface further comprises an indication of a reason why at least one of the subset of the second communications is identified (paragraph 0063 discloses displaying portion of the interactions along with interaction metric as reason why that portion of interaction is displayed).
As to claim 20, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as shown above.
Shim further teaches wherein the first communications comprise communications that occurred within a time period specified by the user (paragraph 0032 discloses interaction record can be real-time, historical as set by the user).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Cho further in view of Arngren et al. (US PGPUB No. US 20180189407 A1), hereinafter, Arngren.
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Shim further teaches wherein presenting, in the user interface, the subset of the second communications comprises: including, in the user interface and in association with a communication of the subset of the second communications, [[a communication modality for responding to the communication]] ((paragraph 0063 discloses identifying portions of the interactions and displaying portion of the interactions).
Shim does not explicitly teach a communication modality for responding to the communication
Arngren teaches a communication modality for responding to the communication (paragraph 0078 discloses communication type includes text, audio, video. Fig. 4c, step 54, discloses returning recommended communication type ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim to incorporate the teaching of Arngren about recommended communication type. One would be motivated to do that improve effectiveness of the communication by choosing most appropriate communication type (see paragraphs 0002-0004 and 0078 of Arngren).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Shim does not teach wherein presenting, in the user interface, the subset of the second communications comprises: presenting a preferred communication modality of a second user of the other users in association with a communication of the subset of the second communications.
Arngren teaches wherein presenting, in the user interface, the subset of the second communications comprises: presenting a preferred communication modality of a second user of the other users in association with a communication of the subset of the second communications (Fig. 4c, step 54, discloses returning recommended communication type).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim to incorporate the teaching of Arngren about recommended communication type. One would be motivated to do that improve effectiveness of the communication by choosing most appropriate communication type (see paragraphs 0002-0004 and 0078 of Arngren).
Claims 11, 12, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shim in view of Cho further in view of Ginevan et al. (US Patent No. US 8769032 B2), hereinafter, Ginevan.
As to claim 11, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as shown above.
Shim does not teach wherein at least one of the first communications is identified as an in-person communication between the user and the another user based on proximity information.
Ginevan teaches wherein at least one of the first communications is identified as an in-person communication between the user and the another user based on proximity information (Col. 7, lines 60-65, discloses face to face communication based on proximity information as stated “If at block 510, the recipient is not in a meeting, then at block 520, if the recipient is in his office, then at block 525, the lowest cost communication mode may be given the highest ranking. In this case, the lowest cost communication mode may be a face-to-face meeting provided the sender and the recipient are in close proximity to one another”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim to incorporate the teaching of Ginevan about face to face communication based on proximity information. One would be motivated to do that to improve the effectiveness of the communication (see background section of Ginevan).
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho and Ginevan teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as shown above.
Shim does not teach wherein the proximity information is determined based on location information received from or about a first device associated with the user and a second device associated with the another user.
Ginevan wherein the proximity information is determined based on location information received from or about a first device associated with the user and a second device associated with the another user (Col. 3, lines 41-50, discloses proximity is determined based on the location information received the user devices as stated “The device location server 120 is operable to determine a location of a registered device and communicate device location information to the central processing server 105. The device location server 120 may be adapted to receive information from various sources. For example, cellular network carriers may provide information that enables determining the location of a cell phone in their network. This information may be generated by way of global positioning system (GPS) circuitry within the cell phone, via triangulation of the device, or by other means.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim to incorporate the teaching of Ginevan about determining proximity based on the location information. One would be motivated to do that to improve the effectiveness of the communication (see background section of Ginevan).
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as shown above.
Shim does not teach wherein the communications monitoring software identifies the subset of the second communications responsive to determining that the user is available.
Ginevan teaches wherein the communications monitoring software identifies the subset of the second communications responsive to determining that the user is available (Col. 5, lines 41-43, discloses communication mode based on the fact that user is available as stated “When the location of the device and the location of the recipient are in close proximity to one another, the device may be considered available.” ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim to incorporate the teaching of Ginevan about communication mode based on the fact that user is available. One would be motivated to do that to improve the effectiveness of the communication (see paragraphs background section of Ginevan).
As to claim 18, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. Shim in view of Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 15 as shown above.
Shim does not teach wherein the user is determined to be available responsive to at least one of: detecting an activity on a device associated with the user after a period of inactivity of the device; a change in a presence status of the user to available from another presence status; or determining that the user is no longer in a meeting.
Ginevan wherein the user is determined to be available responsive to at least one of: detecting an activity on a device associated with the user after a period of inactivity of the device; a change in a presence status of the user to available from another presence status; or determining that the user is no longer in a meeting (Col. 5, lines 43-45, discloses user not in the meeting as stated “In instances where the device and recipient are not in close proximity, the device may be considered unavailable.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shim to incorporate the teaching of Ginevan about determining user not in the meeting. One would be motivated to do that to the improve effectiveness of the communication (see paragraphs background section of Ginevan).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL M HOSSAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3070. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 M-F.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
May 11, 2026
/KAMAL M HOSSAIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights