DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication(s) filed on 10/22/2024.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Generating Interactive Probing User Interface Elements in a Multi-User Media Session Based on Media Stream Analysis.
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent.
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 1-8 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The representative claim 11 recite(s) limitations reflecting steps of receiving media streams, determining an interactive input request, generating and sending one or more probing elements representative of the request, wherein the sending causes simultaneous display of information. The claimed, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A system comprising one or more processors and one or more storage media storing one or more computer programs for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more computer programs”, stating that the receiving and sending of information is from and to computer systems, such as an application server, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, except for the computer language, the claim encompasses a user simply comparing the collected data about a data during a communication with a person and making determinations and/or generating outputs in his/her mind, without or without aids, like pencil and paper. Actually, the entire process describes a series of logical data processing, decision-making, and communication steps that can be performed in the human mind (with or without pen and paper) because they rely entirely on basic arithmetic, logical rules, and symbolic representation rather than any specialized or proprietary hardware mechanisms. The mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The courts have found claims such as these to be mental processes. E.g., the courts have found that “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). III.A. Here, the sending step serves as an output step similar to displaying of the results. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea –– a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites a combination of additional elements, which as mentioned above are generic computer components, describing the data, its source and destination, e.g., as originating from, being sent to, and being displayable on these computer generic components. These amount to instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in claim 11, and thus it is ineligible.
Claim 1 is directed to a method performed by the system of claim 11 and is ineligible for similar reasons.
Claims 2-8 and 12-18 further recites the abstract idea, e.g., adding steps like “converting audio data to textual content”, which are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or present limitations that also use the further descriptions of the data handled by the system/method, which also apply the exception using a generic computer component and or amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
NOTE: Claims 9, 10, 19 and 20 provide a practical application by restricting the data collection of responses to probing elements to be based on only the coordinates and location changes of participant UI controls, and is directed at solving a purported problem by improving the collecting of input data during a real-time media stream. Instant Specification ¶¶ 5-7 (as filed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) or 112(1st)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain(s) subject matter which was/were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 8 and 18 claim introduces a chronological sequence requiring user approval before generating the one or more probing UI elements, which the Instant Specification doesn’t sufficiently describe. Instead, the Instant Specification teaches that the elements must be generated before receiving that approval, see Instant Specification ¶ 67 (as published).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or 112(2nd)
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “generating and sending… one or more probing user interface (UI) elements that represent the interactive input request on a first user interface (UI) of the first client computer system and a second user interface (UI) of the second client computer system of the media session to the first client computer system and the second client computer system”. Here, including “that represent the interactive input request on a first user interface (UI) of the first client computer system and a second user interface (UI) of the second client computer system of the media session” between “generating and sending… one or more probing user interface (UI) elements” and “to the first client computer system and the second client computer system” introduces ambiguity as to where and when the generating of the elements occurs. E.g., does the generating occur before or after the sending? And is the generating done “on a first” and “second user interface”? For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to generating elements before sending them to the first and second computer system, and are meant to be displayed on the first and second computer systems to represent the “interactive input request”. Correction required.
Claims 8 and 18 include limitations that are unclear because they contradict the Instant Specification. The claim introduces a chronological sequence requiring user approval before generating the one or more probing UI elements, which directly violates and conflicts with the specification's explicit teaching that the elements must be generated before receiving that approval, see Instant Specification ¶ 67 (as published). For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to generating the one or more elements for approval before disseminating to other participants. Correction required.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected as they depend on claim(s) above.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 14-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cupala; Shiraz J. et al. (hereinafter Cupala – US 20220263675 A1) in view of Mese; John C. et al. (hereinafter Mese – US 11647060 B1).
Independent Claim 1:
Cupala teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by an application server, a plurality of media streams originating from a corresponding plurality of client computer systems that includes a first client computer system associated with a first user and a second client computer system associated with a second user in a media session; (methods and systems generate a persistent, portable collaboration object that allows multiple users to concurrently share, organize, and interact with meeting content––such as agendas, notes, action items, and multimedia files––in real time before, during, and after both pre-scheduled and impromptu meetings, Abstract, ¶ 4 and fig. 1. Herein, the data communicated in this context can be interpreted as media streams because it involves the continuous, real-time, and dynamic transmission of varied content types during multi-user collaboration, ¶ 4. The systems include an application server involved in facilitating virtual meeting functions because servers 136A-B are configured to host applications (such as Microsoft Teams™ or Google Hangouts™ mentioned in paragraph) that feature virtual meeting functionality, ¶ 37)
[…];
generating and sending, by the application server, (meeting collaboration objects, e.g., agenda items and notes, can be automatically “generated” and “sent” to the virtual meeting participants based on the meeting invitation, including the collaboration objects and the same being received and displayed on their user devices, ¶¶ 4-5 and 36 and fig. 1,5B,10B. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to generating elements before sending them to the first and second computer system, and are meant to be displayed on the first and second computer systems to represent the “interactive input request”. See 112(b) rejection.)
one or more probing user interface (UI) elements that represent [an] interactive input request on a first user interface (UI) of the first client computer system and a second user interface (UI) of the second client computer system of the media session to the first client computer system and the second client computer system; (a collaboration object, such as an agenda, can be displayed on the devices, during the meeting before, during, or after a meeting, ¶¶ 98-101 and Fig. 5B. The a “collaboration object”, such as an agenda object [one or more probing user interface (UI) elements that represent the interactive input request], is designed as a structured framework for receiving live user input––such as agenda items, notes, action items, and attachments––to let participants dynamically organize an unscheduled meeting, ¶ 5 and ¶¶ 49-50, and therefore represents an interactive input request. Herein, it is broadly interpreted that probing user interface elements includes UI element(s) such as a question with answer choice(s) or a document to enter input, Instant Specification ¶ 49, as published.)
wherein the sending of the one or more probing UI elements causes to simultaneously display at least, the one or more probing UI elements, a first participant UI control uniquely identifying the first user of the media session and a second participant UI control uniquely identifying the second user of the media session (the agenda object simultaneously display components [one or more probing UI elements] the display of different user cursors uniquely identified by the user’s initials [a first participant UI control uniquely identifying the first user of the media session and a second participant UI control uniquely identifying the second user of the media session], ¶ 100 and Fig. 5B)
on both the first UI of the first client computer system and the second UI of the second client computer system. (All participants can view each other's live entries and updates, such as agendas, notes, and action items, added to the shared collaboration object in real time, along with the location of the cursors for the different participants, ¶ 163 and figs. 5B,10B)
Cupala does not appear to expressly teach, but Mese teaches:
based at least in part on analyzing a portion of a particular media stream of the plurality of the media streams, determining, by the application server, to generate an interactive input request for the plurality of client computer systems (a system automatically determines to generate an interactive poll by analyzing the speaker's audio stream and pitch inflections using voice recognition, speech-to-text, and natural language processing software to infer that a question is being asked, Abstract, col 8:4-60 and figs. 3, and then the poll is generated, cols 8:61-9:9)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method and interactive input request of Cupala to include based at least in part on analyzing a portion of a particular media stream of the plurality of the media streams, determining, by the application server, to generate an interactive input request for the plurality of client computer systems, as taught by Mese.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance functionalities, type of collaborative object, and ease of use afforded by the method, Mese cols 1:17-22,13:28-32.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mese further teaches:
wherein determining to generate the interactive input request for the plurality of client computer systems comprises:
receiving audio data of the particular media stream from the first client computer system in the media session; (receiving audio of a participant audibly asking a question, col 8:34-52 and fig. 3)
converting the audio data to textual content; (text to speech conversion, col 8:34-52 and fig. 3)
based at least in part on the textual content, determining to generate the interactive input request (poll) for the plurality of client computer system. (generating a poll based on the question, cols 8:61-9:9 and fig. 3)
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Cupala, as modified, further teaches:
wherein each of the one or more probing UI elements, representing the interactive input request, corresponds to an answer choice of a plurality of answer choices of the interactive input request. (Mese teaches presenting a poll with at least two selectable options as potential answers to the poll’s question, col 1:42-64 and fig. 4-5 and 7)
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Cupala, as modified, further teaches:
further comprising:
before generating the one or more probing UI elements representing the interactive input request on the first UI and the second UI, determining an interactive content request for generating the interactive input request for the first user and the second user of the media session, wherein the interactive content request, at least in part, includes context data for generating interaction data;
based at least in part on the context data, generating the interaction data for generating the one or more probing UI elements. (before generating the poll, it is inferred that a user is asking a question [determining an interactive content request for generating the interactive input request] the poll answers/response are inferred based on the question that was asked, and the poll includes the question that was asked [wherein the interactive content request, at least in part, includes context data for generating interaction data], Mese Abstract, cols 8:4-60, 10:3-26 and fig. 3)
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mese further teaches:
further comprising:
before generating and sending the one or more probing UI elements, sending to a particular user of the media session a request to approve the interactive input request;
(before sending a poll to other users, the poll is “generated” and “sent” to a participant that asked a question for review and consent/approval, cols 8:61-9:9 and fig. 4. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to generating the one or more elements for approval/consent before disseminating to other participants. See 112(b) rejection. )
receiving a response from the particular user of the media session approving the interactive input request; (once the asking participant approves the generated poll, the respond with their consent by selecting send selector 404, cols 8:61-9:9 and fig. 4)
based on receiving the response from the particular user of the media session, generating and sending, by the application server, the one or more probing UI elements, that represent the interactive input request on the first UI and the second UI. (after approval the prompt is displayed on other participants devices, col 9:10-29 and fig. 5)
Independent Claim 11:
Claim(s) 11 is directed to a system for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 1, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Claim(s) 12 is directed to a system for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 2, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 14:
The rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Claim(s) 14 is directed to a system for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 4, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 15:
The rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Claim(s) 15 is directed to a system for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 5, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 18:
The rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Claim(s) 18 is directed to a system for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 8, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 3, 6, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cupala (US 20220263675 A1) in view of Mese (US 11647060 B1), as applied to claims 1, 2, 11 and 12 above, and further in view of Couch; Christopher Edward et al. (hereinafter Couch – US 20230122304 A1).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. Mese further teaches
further comprising: determining to generate the interactive input request by executing one or more [natural language processing models] using the textual content as input (using a natural language processing software to infer that a question is being asked, based on speech to text results of what a participant said [using the textual content as input] and to determine to generate the interactive poll, col 8:34-60 and figs. 3-5 and 7)
Cupala, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Couch teaches:
that the one or more natural language processing models are “machine learning models (ML models)” (machine learning techniques are commonly used for natural language processing, ¶ 15).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the natural language processing of the method of Cupala to include that the one or more natural language processing models are “machine learning models (ML models)”, as taught by Couch.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to implement the natural processing in a common and effective manner, e.g., using machine learning, Couch ¶ 15 and Mese col 8:34-60 and figs. 3-4.
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mese further teaches
further comprising: generating interaction data by [natural processing software] based at least in part on context data of the media session;
based on the interaction data, generating the one or more probing UI elements (using a natural language processing software to infer that a question is being asked [context data] and to infer and display potential poll answers/responses based on the question [based on the interaction data], col 10:3-26 and figs. 4-5 and 7)
Cupala, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Couch teaches:
that the natural processing is done by “one or more machine learning models (ML models)” (machine learning techniques are commonly used for natural language processing, ¶ 15).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the natural language processing of the method of Cupala to include that the natural processing is done by “one or more machine learning models (ML models)”, as taught by Couch.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to implement the natural processing in a common and effective manner, e.g., using machine learning, Couch 15 and Mese Abstract col 8:34-60 and figs. 4-5 and 7.
Claim 13:
The rejection of claim 12 is incorporated. Claim(s) 13 is directed to a system for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 3, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Claim(s) 16 is directed to a system for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 6, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cupala (US 20220263675 A1) in view of Mese (US 11647060 B1) and Couch (US 20230122304 A1), as applied to claims 6 and 16 above, and further in view of Fay; David (hereinafter Fay – US 20200348829 A1).
Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated. Cupala, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Fay teaches:
wherein the context data, at least in part, contains previous results of at least one previous interaction input request. (a system that uses context data including previous results of interaction requests to make inferences, specifically, it retrieves “prior interaction data”––such as which previous communications the user quickly accessed or responded to––to train models or determine [make inferences about] the importance of current communications, ¶ 136. This process is reflective of what typically occurs in machine learning, which fundamentally relies on using historical data and past feedback to adapt and improve future predictions without being explicitly programmed for every specific outcome).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Cupala to include wherein the context data, at least in part, contains previous results of at least one previous interaction input request, as taught by Fay.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve inference accuracy of the machine learning models used for natural language processing by leveraging historical data to automatically adapt and/generate new interaction data, Fay ¶ 136. This would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art because relying on historical data to update and optimize predictive models is a fundamental, textbook principle of machine learning.
Claim 17:
The rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Claim(s) 17 is directed to a system for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 7, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cupala (US 20220263675 A1) in view of Mese (US 11647060 B1), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Schmidt; Sebastian et al. (hereinafter Schmidt – US 8839116 B2) and Boldin, Anthony J. (hereinafter Boldin – US 20050218224 A1).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Cupala further teaches:
further comprising:
receiving, by the application server, first one or more […] location of the first participant UI control and second one or more […] location of the second participant UI control (The location of multiple cursors is tracked in real-time [receiving…location[s]] to indicate where each user is substantially concurrently editing the shared dynamic content, ¶ 100 and fig. 5B).
Cupala, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Schmidt teaches:
that a location of a UI control can be identified based on “coordinates of” the location (recording mouse pointer coordinates alongside the alternative of storing the selected menu item, and later analyzing these frequent coordinate ranges to identify which screen regions [location] or specific buttons [control] are clicked to resolve user problems, cols 1:62-2:32 ).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Cupala to include that a location of a UI control can be identified based on “coordinates of” the location, as taught by Schmidt.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to monitor the cursor locations in a known and effective manner, Schmidt cols 1:62-2:32.
Cupala, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Boldin teaches:
detecting a trigger event to stop the interactive input request; (A poll stopping request [trigger event to stop the interactive input request] is triggered when a user selects the "Close Polls" button 236 on an advanced administration screen, ¶ 92 and fig. 21).
based at least in part on the detecting the trigger event, determining, by the application server, first response data of the first user to the interactive input request and second response data of the second user to the interactive input request. (When a user triggers a poll stopping request by selecting "Close Polls," the system ends voting and transitions to a post-election mode, after which selecting "Reset Election" generates and prints the post-election summary report., ¶ 92 and fig. 21).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Cupala to include detecting a trigger event to stop the interactive input request; based at least in part on the detecting the trigger event, determining, by the application server, first response data of the first user to the interactive input request and second response data of the second user to the interactive input request, as taught by Boldin.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability and control offered by the system by ending the voting phase, on demand, to transition the system into post-election reporting and data storage, Boldin ¶¶ 11 and 92 and fig. 21.
Claim 19:
The rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Claim(s) 19 is directed to a system for accomplishing the steps of the method in claim 9, and is rejected using similar rationale(s).
No Prior Art Rejection (claims 10 and 20)
Claims 10 and 20:
Claims 10 and 20 are not rejected under prior art, because the prior art fails to fairly teach all of the limitations of the claim, as a whole. E.g., while the prior art teaches the elements of claims 1 and 11 and some claims 10 and 20, the prior art fails to teach the claims required probing and participant UI controls to be displayed simultaneously across both client systems, while allowing the application server to determine user responses based solely on the coordinates of those controls without receiving any other interaction data.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 10-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and/or 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,164,938 (hereinafter the Patent) in view of Mese; John C. et al. (hereinafter Mese – US 11647060 B1).
Table: Similarity between Instant and Patent Claims (hereinafter the Table)
Instant Claim(s)
Patent Claim(s)
Scope Comparison
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a plurality of media streams from client systems (including a first user and a second user) in a media session.
1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving... a first media stream originating from a first client computer system... and a second media stream originating from a second client computer system... in a media session
same, different wording.
"based at least in part on analyzing a portion of a particular media stream of the plurality of the media streams, determining, by the application server, to generate an interactive input request for the plurality of client computer systems"
"receiving... a request to generate an interactive input request related to a particular portion of a media stream"
obvious over 103 reference(s).
generating and sending one or more probing UI elements representing the request to both the first and second client systems.
generating and sending, by the application server, one or more probing user interface (UI) elements that represent the interactive input request on a first user interface (UI) of the first client computer system and a second user interface (UI) of the second client computer system of the media session to the first client computer system and the second client computer system
same, different wording.
wherein sending the probing elements causes simultaneous display of the elements and unique participant UI controls for both users on both screens.
wherein the sending of the one or more probing UI elements causes to simultaneously display, at least, the one or more probing UI elements, a first participant UI control uniquely identifying the first user of the media session and a second participant UI control uniquely identifying the second user of the media session on both the first UI of the first client computer system and the second UI of the second client computer system
same, different wording.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein determining to generate the interactive input request for the plurality of client computer systems comprises: receiving audio data of the particular media stream from the first client computer system in the media session; converting the audio data to textual content; based at least in part on the textual content, determining to generate the interactive input request for the plurality of client computer system.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein receiving a request to generate the interactive input request comprises:receiving audio data from the first client computer system in the media session;converting the audio data to textual content;determining that the textual content contains the interactive input request; based on determining that the textual content contains the interactive input request, generating interaction data for generating the one or more probing UI elements.
obvious over 103 reference(s). similar, but for the distinctions of claim 1 of determining to generate versus receiving a request. Both claims describe the same core workflow of capturing audio data from a client system, converting it into text, and analyzing that text to trigger the generation of an interactive input request or UI elements for the media session.
3. The method of Claim 2, further comprising: determining to generate the interactive input request by executing one or more machine learning models (ML models) using the textual content as input.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:generating interaction data by one or more machine learning models (ML models) based at least in part on context data of the media session.
obvious over 103 reference(s). similar, but for the distinctions of claim 1 of determining to generate versus receiving a request. both methods incorporate one or more machine learning models to dynamically analyze context or content data to determine or generate the interactive experience
4. The method of Claim 1, wherein each of the one or more probing UI elements, representing the interactive input request, corresponds to an answer choice of a plurality of answer choices of the interactive input request.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more probing UI elements, representing the interactive input request, corresponds to an answer choice of a plurality of answer choices of the interactive input request.
same
5. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: before generating the one or more probing UI elements representing the interactive input request on the first UI and the second UI, determining an interactive content request for generating the interactive input request for the first user and the second user of the media session, wherein the interactive content request, at least in part, includes context data for generating interaction data; based at least in part on the context data, generating the interaction data for generating the one or more probing UI elements.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:before generating the one or more probing UI elements representing the interactive input request on the first Ul and the second UI, receiving an interactive content request for generating the interactive input request for the first user and the second user of the media session, wherein the interactive content request, at least in part, includes context data for generating interaction data;based at least in part on the context data, generating the interaction data for generating the one or more probing UI elements.
obvious over 103 reference(s). These claims are similar because they both involve acquiring an interactive content request containing context data before generating probing UI elements, but they differ in how that request is obtained: Instant Claim 5 focuses on determining the request, while Patent Claim 3 focuses on receiving it.
6. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: generating interaction data by one or more machine learning models (ML models) based at least in part on context data of the media session;
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:generating interaction data by one or more machine learning models (ML models) based at least in part on context data of the media session.
same.
based on the interaction data, generating the one or more probing UI elements.
1...generating...one or more probing user interface (UI) elements 4...based on determining that the textual content contains the interactive input request, generating interaction data for generating the one or more probing UI elements.
same, taught by claims 1 and 4 together.
7. The method of Claim 6, wherein the context data, at least in part, contains previous results of at least one previous interaction input request.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the context data, at least in part, contains previous results of at least one previous interaction input request.
same
8. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: before generating and sending the one or more probing UI elements, sending to a particular user of the media session a request to approve the interactive input request; receiving a response from the particular user of the media session approving the interactive input request; based on receiving the response from the particular user of the media session, generating and sending, by the application server, the one or more probing UI elements, that represent the interactive input request on the first UI and the second UI.
n/a
obvious over 103 reference(s)
9. The method of Claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the application server, first one or more coordinates of location of the first participant UI control and second one or more coordinates of location of the second participant UI control; detecting a trigger event to stop the interactive input request; based at least in part on the detecting the trigger event, determining, by the application server, first response data of the first user to the interactive input request and second response data of the second user to the interactive input request.
1... receiving, by the application server and from the first client computer system and the second client computer system, first one or more coordinates of location of the first participant UI control and second one or more coordinates of location of the second participant UI control, wherein the first one or more coordinates and the second one or more coordinates are respective coordinates of the first participant UI control on the first UI of the first client computer system and of the second participant UI control on the second UI of the second client computer system of the media session;based at least in part on one or more particular coordinates of location of the one or more probing UI elements and the application server receiving the first one or more coordinates of location of the first participant UI control and the second one or more coordinates of location of the second participant UI control determining, by the application server, first response data of the first user to the interactive input request and second response data of the second user to the interactive input request;
obvious over 103 reference(s). Both describe an application server receiving coordinates for two participant UI controls and determining user response data based on that location data, but they differ in what triggers this determination. Instant Claim 9 explicitly relies on detecting a trigger event to stop the request, whereas Claim 1 relies on the specific positions of one or more probing UI elements.
10. The method Claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the application server and from the first client computer system and the second client computer system, first one or more coordinates of location of the first participant UI control and second one or more coordinates of location of the second participant UI control, wherein the first one or more coordinates and the second one or more coordinates are respective coordinates of the first participant UI control on the first UI of the first client computer system and of the second participant UI control on the second UI of the second client computer system of the media session; based at least in part on one or more particular coordinates of location of the one or more probing UI elements and the application server receiving the first one or more coordinates of location of the first participant UI control and the second one or more coordinates of location of the second participant UI control, determining, by the application server, first response data of the first user to the interactive input request and second response data of the second user to the interactive input request; wherein the determining of the first response data and the second response data is performed without receiving any interaction data from the first client computer system and the second client computer system other than the first one or more coordinates and the second one or more coordinates.
1… receiving, by the application server and from the first client computer system and the second client computer system, first one or more coordinates of location of the first participant UI control and second one or more coordinates of location of the second participant UI control, wherein the first one or more coordinates and the second one or more coordinates are respective coordinates of the first participant UI control on the first UI of the first client computer system and of the second participant UI control on the second UI of the second client computer system of the media session;based at least in part on one or more particular coordinates of location of the one or more probing UI elements and the application server receiving the first one or more coordinates of location of the first participant UI control and the second one or more coordinates of location of the second participant UI control, determining, by the application server, first response data of the first user to the interactive input request and second response data of the second user to the interactive input request;wherein the determining of the first response data and the second response data is performed without receiving any interaction data from the first client computer system and the second client computer system other than the first one or more coordinates and the second one or more coordinates.
same, but slightly different wording. Both describe the exact same process of an application server receiving UI control coordinates from two client computers to determine user response data based on probing UI element locations without any other interaction data.
Claim 1:
The Patent teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as explained in the Table. The Patent does not appear to expressly teach, but Mese teaches:
based at least in part on analyzing a portion of a particular media stream of the plurality of the media streams, determining, by the application server, to generate an interactive input request for the plurality of client computer systems (a system automatically determines to generate an interactive poll by analyzing the speaker's audio stream and pitch inflections using voice recognition, speech-to-text, and natural language processing software to infer that a question is being asked, Abstract, col 8:4-60 and figs. 3, and then the poll is generated, cols 8:61-9:9)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of the Patent to include based at least in part on analyzing a portion of a particular media stream of the plurality of the media streams, determining, by the application server, to generate an interactive input request for the plurality of client computer systems, as taught by Mese.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to enhance functionalities, type of collaborative object, and ease of use afforded by the method, Mese cols 1:17-22,13:28-32.
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. The Patent, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 2, as explained in the Table. Mese further teaches:
wherein determining to generate the interactive input request for the plurality of client computer systems comprises:
receiving audio data of the particular media stream from the first client computer system in the media session; (receiving audio of a participant audibly asking a question, col 8:34-52 and fig. 3)
converting the audio data to textual content; (text to speech conversion, col 8:34-52 and fig. 3)
based at least in part on the textual content, determining to generate the interactive input request (poll) for the plurality of client computer system. (generating a poll based on the question, cols 8:61-9:9 and fig. 3)
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. The Patent further teaches:
“one or more machine learning models” used as a natural language processor for dynamically analyze context or content data to determine or generate the interactive experience.
Mese further teaches
further comprising: determining to generate the interactive input request by executing one or more [natural language processing models] using the textual content as input (using a natural language processing software to infer that a question is being asked, based on speech to text results of what a participant said [using the textual content as input] and to determine to generate the interactive poll, col 8:34-60 and figs. 3-5 and 7)
Claims 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. The Patent, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 4, as explained in the Table.
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. The Patent, as modified, further teaches:
further comprising:
before generating the one or more probing UI elements representing the interactive input request on the first UI and the second UI, determining an interactive content request for generating the interactive input request for the first user and the second user of the media session, wherein the interactive content request, at least in part, includes context data for generating interaction data;
based at least in part on the context data, generating the interaction data for generating the one or more probing UI elements. (before generating the poll, it is inferred that a user is asking a question [determining an interactive content request for generating the interactive input request] the poll answers/response are inferred based on the question that was asked, and the poll includes the question that was asked [wherein the interactive content request, at least in part, includes context data for generating interaction data], Mese Abstract, cols 8:4-60, 10:3-26 and fig. 3)
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. The Patent, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 6, as explained in the Table.
Claims 7 and 10:
The rejection of claims 1 and 6 are incorporated. The Patent, as modified, teaches the limitations of claims 7 and 10, as explained in the Table.
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Mese further teaches:
further comprising:
before generating and sending the one or more probing UI elements, sending to a particular user of the media session a request to approve the interactive input request;
(before sending a poll to other users, the poll is “generated” and “sent” to a participant that asked a question for review and consent/approval, cols 8:61-9:9 and fig. 4. For purposes of compact prosecution only, the examiner interprets the limitation(s) as being directed to generating the one or more elements for approval/consent before disseminating to other participants. See 112(b) rejection. )
receiving a response from the particular user of the media session approving the interactive input request; (once the asking participant approves the generated poll, the respond with their consent by selecting send selector 404, cols 8:61-9:9 and fig. 4)
based on receiving the response from the particular user of the media session, generating and sending, by the application server, the one or more probing UI elements, that represent the interactive input request on the first UI and the second UI. (after approval the prompt is displayed on other participants devices, col 9:10-29 and fig. 5)
Claims 11-18 and 20:
The rejection of claims 11 is incorporated. Claims 12-18 and 20 are directed to a system for accomplishing the steps of the methods in claims 2-8 and 10, respectively, and are rejected using similar rationale(s).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,164,938 (hereinafter the Patent) in view of Mese; John C. et al. (hereinafter Mese – US 11647060 B1), as explained for claims 1 and 11, and further in view of Boldin, Anthony J. (hereinafter Boldin – US 20050218224 A1).
Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. The Patent, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9, as explained in the Table.
The Patent, as modified, does not appear to expressly teach, but Boldin teaches:
detecting a trigger event to stop the interactive input request; (A poll stopping request [trigger event to stop the interactive input request] is triggered when a user selects the "Close Polls" button 236 on an advanced administration screen, ¶ 92 and fig. 21).
based at least in part on the detecting the trigger event, determining, by the application server, first response data of the first user to the interactive input request and second response data of the second user to the interactive input request. (When a user triggers a poll stopping request by selecting "Close Polls," the system ends voting and transitions to a post-election mode, after which selecting "Reset Election" generates and prints the post-election summary report., ¶ 92 and fig. 21).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of the Patent to include detecting a trigger event to stop the interactive input request; based at least in part on the detecting the trigger event, determining, by the application server, first response data of the first user to the interactive input request and second response data of the second user to the interactive input request, as taught by Boldin.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the usability and control offered by the system by ending the voting phase, on demand, to transition the system into post-election reporting and data storage, Boldin ¶¶ 11 and 92 and fig. 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Below is a list of these references, including why they are pertinent:
Siracusano, JR.; Louis US 20180011627 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a system that manages a collaborative media session by receiving multiple user media streams, generating and displaying interactive poll or question interfaces across participant devices, tracking the precise cursor locations of users' interactions with those interfaces, and utilizing that location data to determine each user's specific response, ¶¶ 43, 64, 67, 71, 83, 104-106, 120-123, and 167, and figs. 1, 2A, 3, 8, and 9.
Toyama; Kentaro et al. US 20080003559 A1, is pertinent to claim 1 for disclosing a collaborative method where multiple users on a single display share a presentation using unique, customizable user interface controls and cursors, Abstract, ¶¶ 3, 13-14, and 19, and fig. 2.
Hong; Linshuang et al. US 20220113847 A1, is pertinent to claim 10 for disclosing voting based on cursor position, which defines a “selection instruction” as hovering the cursor over the voting button, which relies entirely on the coordinate position of the cursor matching the position of the rendered button to trigger the vote, ¶ 85.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL S MERCADO whose telephone number is (408)918-7537. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm (Eastern Time).
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.
/Gabriel Mercado/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights