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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Claims 1-7, 11-17, drawn to a method for automatically incorporating certain content into a meeting document in furtherance of generating a meeting summary and/or other type of document based on content of a meeting, classified in H04L12/1831.
Claims 8-10, drawn to a method for generating an action item based on natural language content provided during a meeting of participants, and reminding certain participants about the action item and/or designating the action item as complete based on certain conditions, classified in H04L12/1818.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombination disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombination are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, they do not overlap in scope and not obvious variants and subcombination I has separate utility such as automatically incorporating certain content into a meeting document wherein generating an action item is not required. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombination usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: (a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; (c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different main groups/sub-groups or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); (d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; (e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. It is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other inventions (e.g. searching different main groups/sub-groups or electronic resources or employing different search queries), even though the inventions are classified together. Invention I is directed to a method a method for automatically incorporating certain content into a meeting document in furtherance of generating a meeting summary and/or other type of document based on content of a meeting; features not required by the other groups; Invention II is directed to a method for generating an action item based on natural language content provided during a meeting of participants, and reminding certain participants about the action item and/or designating the action item as complete based on certain conditions; features are not required by other groups;.
The above inventions or subcombinations require a different field of search and in that prior art usable for one invention or subcombination would not likely be sufficiently useful for the other inventions or subcombinations.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Scott Higdon on 8/18/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of invention I, claims 1-7, 11-17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8-10 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 11-14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20180101761 to Nelson et al. (“Nelson”).
As to claims 1 and 11, Nelson discloses a method and a system, the method implemented by one or more processors, the method comprising: causing, by an application of a computing device, audio data corresponding to spoken natural language content to be processed in furtherance of generating a text entry for a meeting document, wherein the spoken natural language content is provided by a participant of a meeting to one or more other participants of the meeting [paragraph 0126: “Electronic meeting participants may be selected manually by users and according to one embodiment, the selection of meeting participants is assisted by artificial intelligence provided by meeting intelligence apparatus 102”, paragraph 0198: “Data extraction logic 500 causes first meeting content data 302 to be extracted from audio/video data 300. Meeting intelligence apparatus 102 analyzes first meeting content data 302 and uses metadata generation logic 502 to generate meeting content metadata 504. Report generation logic 506 causes meeting content metadata 504 to be included in report 508”]; determining, based on the text entry, a degree of relevance of the text entry to one or more instances of data associated with the meeting, wherein the one or more instances of data include a document accessed by at least one participant of the meeting prior to, and/or during, the meeting [paragraphs 0116: “Suggested agenda items 256 are topics for discussion that are determined to be relevant and appropriate for a particular new electronic meeting. The topics may be topics that have been scheduled for discussion, or actually discussed, in other electronic meetings, or they may be new topics. For example, suggested agenda items 259 may include topics that appear in multiple electronic documents related to the subject matter of a new electronic meeting. To generate suggested agenda items 256, meeting intelligence apparatus 102 may analyze agendas of other prior or current electronic meetings, minutes or other written records of other electronic meetings, other documentation, or any other information”, paragraphs 0198, 203-204, Figs. 5, 6B-6C] ; determining, based on the degree of relevance, whether or not to incorporate the text entry into the meeting document [paragraph 0197: “after an electronic meeting ends, meeting intelligence apparatus 102 may analyze stored meeting content data and generate reports based on analyzed meeting content data. Alternatively, meeting intelligence apparatus 102 may analyze meeting content data during an electronic meeting and may generate, after the electronic meeting ends, a report based on analyzed meeting content data. Reports may include any type and amount of data, including any number of documents, a meeting agenda, a meeting summary, a meeting transcript, a meeting participant analysis, a slideshow presentation, etc. As previously described herein, post meeting processing results may be used for other electronic meetings. For example, post meeting processing results may be used to determine suggested meeting participants for other electronic meetings. This may be repeated to improve the quality of suggested meeting participants over time”]; and when the application determines to incorporate the text entry into the meeting document: causing, by the application, the text entry to be incorporated into the meeting document [paragraph 0197: “after an electronic meeting ends, meeting intelligence apparatus 102 may analyze stored meeting content data and generate reports based on analyzed meeting content data. Alternatively, meeting intelligence apparatus 102 may analyze meeting content data during an electronic meeting and may generate, after the electronic meeting ends, a report based on analyzed meeting content data. Reports may include any type and amount of data, including any number of documents, a meeting agenda, a meeting summary, a meeting transcript, a meeting participant analysis, a slideshow presentation, etc. As previously described herein, post meeting processing results may be used for other electronic meetings. For example, post meeting processing results may be used to determine suggested meeting participants for other electronic meetings. This may be repeated to improve the quality of suggested meeting participants over time”], wherein the meeting document is being rendered at a display interface of the computing device, or the additional computing device, that is being accessed, during the meeting, by the one or more other participants of the meeting [paragraph 0209: “Meeting results screen 710 displays meeting results for a selected electronic meeting. In the example depicted in FIG. 7A, the meeting results information is presented in the form of a meeting summary “dashboard,” that includes many of the meeting content metadata 504”, also see Fig. 7B].
As to claims 2 and 12, Nelson discloses when the application determines to incorporate the text entry into the meeting document: determining that, during the meeting, a particular participant of the meeting selected, via an interface of the computing device, or the other computing device, to generate an action item based on the text entry of the meeting document, wherein the action item is generated to provide a conditional reminder to at least one participant of the meeting [paragraph 0204: “first meeting content data 302 includes the statement “Action item create schedule by Tuesday”. Metadata generation logic 502 includes speech or text recognition logic 400, which performs speech or text recognition on first meeting content data 302 to recognize one or more keywords 606 in first meeting content data 302”, also see paragraphs 0170-172].
As to claims 3 and 13, Nelson discloses wherein the conditional reminder is rendered for the at least one participant of the meeting when one or more conditions are satisfied, and wherein the one or more conditions are determined to be satisfied using at least contextual data that is accessible to the application [paragraphs 0204, 0205, 207].
As to claims 4 and 14, Nelson discloses wherein the contextual data includes a location of the at least one participant of the meeting, and wherein the one or more conditions are satisfied when the at least one participant of the meeting is within a threshold distance of a particular location [paragraph 0205: “Meeting intelligence apparatus 102 may generate meeting content metadata 504 based on internal and/or external information, such as geolocation information or a meeting room availability schedule”].
As to claims 7 and 17, Nelson discloses wherein determining the degree of relevance of the text entry to the one or more instances of data associated with the meeting includes: determining that the at least one participant of the meeting performed a non-verbal gesture when the participant of the meeting provided the spoken natural language content, wherein the degree of relevance is based on an interpretation of the non-verbal gesture by the application or another application [paragraphs 0076: “Meeting intelligence apparatus 102 may analyze meeting content data using any of a number of tools, such as speech or text recognition, voice or face identification, sentiment analysis, object detection, gestural analysis, thermal imaging, etc. Based on analyzing the meeting content data and/or in response to requests, for example, from electronic meeting applications, meeting intelligence apparatus 102, either alone or in combination with one or more electronic meeting applications, performs any of a number of automated tasks, including performing one or more actions with respect to an electronic meeting, such as creating an electronic meeting, providing a translation, responding to an information request, determining suggested agenda items and suggested meeting participants, performing various types of real-time processing with respect to an electronic meeting, such as managing the flow of an electronic meeting, processing agenda items, creating actions items, etc., and various post-meeting processing, such as generating a report, etc.”, also see paragraphs 0109, 0149, 230].
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 5-6, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. No. 20180101761 to Nelson et al. (“Nelson”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20230004713 to Broussard et al. (“Broussard”).
As to claims 5 and 15, Nelson discloses the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11 (see rejection of claims 1 and 11).
Nelson does not expressly disclose wherein determining the degree of relevance of the text entry to the one or more instances of data associated with the meeting includes: determining that a first participant of the meeting provided, during the meeting, a text input to a first document, and that a second participant of the meeting provided, during the meeting, an additional text input to a second document, wherein the degree of relevance is based on whether or not the text input and the additional text input are correlated to the text entry generated from the spoken natural language input.
In the same or similar field of invention, Broussard discloses the feature of wherein determining the degree of relevance of the text entry to the one or more instances of data associated with the meeting includes: determining that a first participant of the meeting provided, during the meeting, a text input to a first document, and that a second participant of the meeting provided, during the meeting, an additional text input to a second document, wherein the degree of relevance is based on whether or not the text input and the additional text input are correlated to the text entry generated from the spoken natural language input [Broussard paragraph 0086].
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Nelson to have above features as taught by Broussard. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide computer-assisted note taking, and particularly to a content management system that predicts text for a document based on a transcript using machine learning [Broussard paragraph 0001].
As to claims 6 and 16, Broussard discloses wherein determining the degree of relevance of the text entry to the one or more instances of data associated with the meeting includes: determining that a first participant of the meeting provided a spoken input during the meeting, and that a second participant of the meeting provided an additional spoken input within a threshold duration of time of the participant providing the spoken natural language content, wherein the degree of relevance is based on whether or not the spoken input and the additional spoken input are correlated to the text entry [paragraph 0086]. In addition, the same motivation is used as the rejection of claims 5 and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTIM G SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-5214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANTIM G SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights