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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 11 and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PREUSS, Achim (US-20210233030-A1, hereinafter simply referred to as Achim).
Regarding independent claim(s) 1, 8 and 15, Achim teaches:
A system for automatically detecting a statement’s veracity (e.g., interview question transcript accuracy of Achim), the system comprising: one or more computer processors (e.g., processor(s) of Achim); and a memory (e.g., memory of Achim) having stored therein machine executable instructions, that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: receive a multimedia file comprising an interview of one or more participants of interest and one or more file components (See at least Achim, ¶ [0007]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 15; "…grouping candidate interview results – i.e., of interview questions and response videos…"), the one or more file components comprising one or more of a transcript file (e.g., transcripts from submitted video interviews (FIGS. 12 & 13) of Achim), an audio file, and a video file; determine, from a user input, a desired characteristic (See at least Achim, ¶ [0036, 0044, 0067]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 13, 15); segment the multimedia file into at least one chunk (See at least Achim, ¶ [0092]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 13, 15; "…one or more scoring levels (e.g., “red,” “yellow,” “green” as discussed further below)…"); identify, from the at least one chunk, an expression, the expression comprising vocal characteristics (e.g., transcript for total word count, average word length of Achim) from multimedia content (See at least Achim, ¶ [0092]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 13, 15; "…an average word length (e.g., mean or median word length) of an interview question transcript…"); generate from the expression and via a multi-tier classification algorithm (e.g., machine learning algorithm of Achim), a score related to one or more of a plurality of statements, the score indicating a likelihood of the desired characteristic being present (See at least Achim, ¶ [0070, 0128, 0153]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 13, 15; "…candidate interview question transcripts are scored…"), wherein the multi-tier classification algorithm is a machine learning algorithm (e.g., machine learning algorithm of Achim), the machine learning algorithm including a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving an input dataset comprising vocal characteristics (e.g., transcript for total word count, average word length of Achim) from the at least one chunk (See at least Achim, ¶ [0166]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 13, 15); determining a first tier determination (e.g., honest interview question responses of Achim) comprising a first confidence level of a presence of the characteristic (See at least Achim, ¶ [0092, 0140]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 13, 15); determining a second tier determination (e.g., dishonest interview question responses of Achim) comprising a second confidence level of a lack of the characteristic (See at least Achim, ¶ [0092, 0140]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 13, 15); determining a third tier determination (e.g., honest and dishonest interview question responses of Achim) comprising a third confidence level of both the presence and the lack of the characteristic (See at least Achim, ¶ [0092, 0140]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 13, 15); producing an output dataset comprising the score for the at least one chunk based on the first confidence level, the second confidence level, and the third confidence level (See at least Achim, ¶ [0007]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 15; "…grouping candidate interview results – i.e., of interview questions and response videos…", Also, see at least Achim, ¶ [0092, 0140, 0142, 0143]); assign the score to the corresponding at least one chunk; and a user interface configured to dynamically display any of audio, text, or video components and the score associated with the at least one chunk (See at least Achim, ¶ [0007]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 15; "…grouping candidate interview results – i.e., of interview questions and response videos…", Also, see at least Achim, ¶ [0092, 0140, 0142, 0143]).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 2, 9 and 16, Achim teaches:
a gallery view module configured to isolate a video stream associated with at least one of the one or more participants of interest (See at least Achim, ¶ [0127]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 15; "…performing candidate video assessments (e.g., extracting audio data from video files…", Also, see at least Achim, ¶ [0092, 0140, 0142, 0143]).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 3, 10 and 17, Achim teaches:
wherein the multi-tier classification algorithm generates the score in real time (See at least Achim, ¶ [0042]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 15; "…the system 108 scores candidate interview responses in real-time…", Also, see at least Achim, ¶ [0092, 0140, 0142, 0143]).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 4, 11 and 18, Achim teaches:
wherein the facial expression characteristics comprise facial action units (FAUs), wherein the FAUs are assigned a weight to one or more emotions (See at least Achim, ¶ [0129]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 15; "…the video processing engine can be trained to detect body language and facial expression identifiers…", Also, see at least Achim, ¶ [0092, 0140, 0142, 0143]).
Regarding dependent claim(s) 6, 13 and 19, Achim teaches:
wherein the at least one chunk spans three to six seconds of the multimedia file (See at least Achim, ¶ [0004]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 15; "…multimedia response time limit…").
Regarding dependent claim(s) 7, 14 and 20, Achim teaches:
wherein the first tier is optimized to detect truthfulness, wherein the second tier is optimized to detect deceitfulness, and wherein the third tier is optimized to detect both truthfulness and deceitfulness (e.g., honest and dishonest interview question responses of Achim) (See at least Achim, ¶ [0092, 0140]; FIGS. 1 – 10, 12, 13, 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PREUSS, Achim (US-20210233030-A1, hereinafter simply referred to as Achim) in view of Sherkat, Ebrahim (US-20210280314-A1, hereinafter simply referred to as Ebrahim).
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 12, Achim does not expressly teach the concept of wherein the first tier, the second tier, and the third tier are trained using a late fusion model.
Nevertheless, Ebrahim teaches the concept of wherein the first tier, the second tier, and the third tier are trained using a late fusion model (See at least Ebrahim, ¶ [0185]; FIG. 6; "…The output of first groups of LSTMs and the second group of LSTMs may be combined in a late fusion block that may perform decision making 650…").
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use and apply the known technique of wherein the first tier, the second tier, and the third tier are trained using a late fusion model as disclosed in the device of Ebrahim to modify and improve the known and similar device of Achim for the desirable and advantageous purpose of providing edge technology for professionals to see all physiological signals in a history between visits, to store notes and data from each physical examination, and aggregate all the information in the edge for anomaly detection and can be used for prevention as well as for prediction of adverse events, as discussed in Ebrahim (See ¶ [0008]); thereby, achieving the predictable result of improving the overall efficiency and speed of the system with a reasonable expectation of success while enabling others skilled in the art to best utilize the invention along with various implementations and modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: See the Notice of References Cited (PTO–892)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IDOWU O OSIFADE whose telephone number is (571)272-0864. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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 VILLECCO can be reached on (571) 272 – 7319. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 – 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217 – 9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786 – 9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272 – 1000.
/IDOWU O OSIFADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights