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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
1.The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 21-40 would be allowable if it overcome the double patenting rejection.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent application (16583875). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claims similar methods and comprise almost identical steps (See claim below for comparison).
Application No. 18908065
21. A conferencing system configured, for an interval of time, to: receive time-dependent input data from users; receive profile data for the users; determine classifier scores for reaction classifiers based on the time-dependent input data and the profile data for each user using a computer-based model, wherein each of the reaction classifiers represents a type of state of the user, and the classifier score represents a score for the type of state of the user; determine a correlation between the classifier scores for the reaction classifiers of the users; and present the correlation.
US patent application No. 16583875
1. A conferencing system configured, for an interval of time, to: receive time-dependent input data from a first user, the time-dependent input data obtained via a capturing device; receive profile data for the first user; analyze the time-dependent input data and the profile data for the first user using a computer-based model to obtain at least one classifier score for a reaction
classifier; and transmit the at least one classifier score for the reaction classifier to a second user.
Application No. 18908065
24. The system of claim 21, wherein the time-dependent input data comprises one of an audio input, a video input, or an action input.
US patent application No. 16583875
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the time-dependent input data comprises one of an audio input, a video input, or an action input.
Application No. 18908065
22. The system of claim 21, wherein the classifier scores for the reaction classifiers are determined using the computer-based model comprising a neural network.
US patent application No. 16583875
12. The system of claim 1, wherein the classifier score for the reaction classifier is evaluated
using the computer-based model comprising a neural network.
Application No. 18908065
25. The system of claim 21, wherein the time-dependent input data comprises an audio data of a speech, including a sequence of phonemes of the users; and wherein determining the classifier scores for the reaction classifiers comprises: applying the computer-based model for identifying the types of state of the users from the sequence of the phonemes; assigning the reaction classifiers to the identified the types of state; applying the computer-based model for identifying amplitudes of the types of state; and assigning the classifier scores for the identified amplitudes.
US patent application No. 16583875
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the time-dependent input data comprises an audio data of
a speech, including a sequence of phonemes of the first user; and wherein obtaining the at
least one classifier score for the reaction classifier comprises: applying the computer-based model for identifying an emotion of the first user from the sequence of the phonemes; assigning the reaction classifier to the identified emotion; applying the computer-based model for identifying an amplitude of the emotion; and assigning the classifier score for the identified amplitude.
Application No. 18908065
26. The system of claim 25, wherein the audio data comprises information about at least one of a pitch, a volume, or a tempo of the speech.
US patent application No. 16583875
5. The system of claim 4, wherein the audio data comprises information about at least one of a pitch, a volume, or a tempo of the speech.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the co-pending application 16583875 since the current application and the co-pending application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The claimed invention in the instant application is fully disclosed in the co-pending application and it is broader than the claimed invention in current application (16583875). No new invention or new improvement is being claimed in the instant application. Applicant is now attempting to claim broadly that which had been previously described in more detail in the claims of the patent (In re Van Ornum, 214 USPQ 761 CCPA 1982).
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why Applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5149. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:30 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-7503. 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.
YOSEF K. LAEKEMARIAM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2651
/YOSEF K LAEKEMARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights