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 . The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20180101824-A1 to Nelson et al. (“Nelson”) in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20170161258-A1 to Astigarraga et al. (“Astigarraga”) in view of U.S. Patent No. / U.S. Pre-Grant Publication US-20180373724-A1 to Novak et al. (“Novak”).
As to claim 1, Nelson disclose(s) a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving audio data captured by a recording device during a meeting; (Nelson; receive audio data; [0149])
and generating, utilizing a digital transcription neural network to process the audio data and the meeting context data, a digital transcript of the meeting, the digital transcript including words identified within the meeting context data and the audio data. (Nelson; generate meeting content supplementation including agenda search results and translation of meeting data using meeting intelligence apparatus; [0187]-[0190] )
Nelson does not expressly disclose identifying, from a collection of digital content maintained on a content management system, digital documents stored or accessed by a user account of a participant in the meeting;
determining, by analyzing a subject associated with the meeting and subjects associated with the digital documents, meeting context data for the meeting, the meeting context data including at least a subset of the digital documents corresponding to the subject associated with the meeting.
Astigarraga discloses identifying, from a collection of digital content maintained on a content management system, digital documents Astigarraga ; material repository searched for relevant documents, transcripts, e-mails, etc.; [0024])
determining, by analyzing a subject associated with the meeting and subjects associated with the digital documents, meeting context data for the meeting, the meeting context data including at least a subset of the digital documents corresponding to the subject associated with the meeting. (Astigarraga; material repository searched by topic; [0023])
Nelson-Astigarraga does not expressly disclose the documents stored or accessed by a user account of a participant in the meeting.
Novak discloses the documents stored or accessed by a user account of a participant in the meeting. (Novak; [0032]; file storage account associated with user’s email account)
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the documents of Nelson-Astigarraga and the accounts of Novak. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings as both are concerned with document storage and retrieval. Using the accounts of Novak were well known to those of skill in the art to authenticate access to documents.
Accordingly, the prior art references teach all of the claimed elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings as all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." See MPEP 2141(I) and (III) quoting Supreme Court decision KSR.
As to claim 2, Nelson-Astigarraga-Novak disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the meeting context data comprises selecting the subset of the digital documents by comparing the subject associated with the meeting and the subjects associated with the digital documents. (Novak; search metadata associated with the file; [0028])
As to claim 5, Nelson-Astigarraga-Novak disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying meeting notes provided by one or more participants of the meeting; (NELSON; notes and minutes; [0078])
and including the meeting notes in the meeting context data for the meeting. (NELSON; results include notes and minutes; [0078])
As to claim 7, Nelson-Astigarraga-Novak disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying one or more additional user accounts of one or more additional participants of the meeting; (Novak; [0032]; file storage account associated with user’s email account)
identifying, from the collection of digital content, additional digital documents stored or accessed by the one or more additional user accounts; (Astigarraga ; material repository searched for relevant documents, transcripts, e-mails, etc.; [0024])
and including at least a subset of the additional digital documents in the meeting context data for the meeting. (Nelson; generate meeting content supplementation including agenda search results and translation of meeting data; [0187]-[0190] )
As to claim 8, Nelson-Astigarraga-Novak disclose(s) the computer-implemented method of claim 7, further comprising:
receiving additional audio data captured during the meeting by one or more recording devices associated with the one or more additional participants of the meeting. (Nelson; receive audio data; [0149])
As to claim 9, Nelson-Astigarraga-Novak disclose(s) a system comprising:
at least one processor;
and a non-transitory computer memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
receive audio data captured by a recording device of a user account participating in a meeting;
identify, from a collection of digital content maintained on a content management system, digital documents stored or accessed by the user account participating in the meeting;
and generate, utilizing a digital transcription neural network to process the audio data and the digital documents, a digital transcript of the meeting, the digital transcript including words identified within the digital documents and the audio data.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 1.
As to claim 10, Nelson-Astigarraga-Novak disclose(s) the system of claim 9, wherein the collection of digital content belongs to and is maintained on the content management system for an organization associated with the meeting. (NELSON; organization data; [0070])
As to claim 12, Nelson-Astigarraga-Novak disclose(s) the system of claim 9, wherein identifying the digital documents is further based on comparing content from the collection of digital content with a subject associated with the meeting. (Nelson; generate meeting content supplementation including agenda search results and translation of meeting data using meeting intelligence apparatus; [0187]-[0190] ) (Astigarraga ; material repository searched for relevant documents, transcripts, e-mails, etc.; [0024])
As to claim 14, Nelson-Astigarraga-Novak disclose(s) the system of claim 9, further comprising instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to:
identify meeting notes provided by one or more participants of the meeting; (NELSON; minutes and notes; [0078])
and include the meeting notes in the digital documents for the meeting. (NELSON; supplemental content; [0187])
As to claim 16, Nelson-Astigarraga-Novak disclose(s) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a computer system to:
receive audio data captured by a recording device of a user account participating in a meeting;
identify, from a collection of digital content maintained on a content management system, digital documents stored or accessed by the user account participating in the meeting;
and generate, utilizing a digital transcription neural network to process the audio data and the digital documents, a digital transcript of the meeting, the digital transcript including words identified within the digital documents and the audio data.
See similar rejection and motivation to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5606. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9am-5pm.
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, OSCAR LOUIE can be reached on (571)270-1684. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BRYAN Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights