DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/30/25, 07/28/25, 09/26/25 and 09/23/26 have been acknowledged and considered by the examiner.
Examiner Comment
The examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication in response to the present action. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate with Applicant using Internet email to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03 for other methods of providing written authorization.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “or”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Surazski et al. (U.S. 11,681,819 B1) in view of Fahrendorff et al. (U.S. 2021/0056860 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Surazski discloses a method comprising:
determining a video meeting that includes a plurality of participants and that is hosted by a group-based communication platform (see Surazski; column 1 lines 9-12 and column 3 line 65 – column 4 line 1; Surazski discloses a group meeting platform that records a summary of the meeting for participants, i.e. “plurality of participants”. Video services are provided in the meeting, i.e. “a video meeting”), wherein the group-based communication platform includes a plurality of communication channels that are accessible by different sets of users of the group-based communication platform (see Surazski; column 6 lines 64-67, column 7 line 65 – column 8 lines 8 and column 8 lines 59-63; Surazski discloses conversations being stored and presenting to participants, i.e. “different sets of users”, an indication of a list of topics discussed in a meeting and quotes from different participants during the meeting. Identifying a topic, i.e. out of the listed topics, and quotes relevant for the topic. In other words, different discussions, i.e. “plurality of communication channels”, of topics are provided); The examiner notes that, according to the applicant’s specification, “communication channels” are discussions of a particular topic; see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraph 0019);
generating a transcript that represents a written record of audio occurring during the video meeting (see Surazski; column 7 lines 1-3 and column 8 lines 8-11; Surazski discloses a transcript engine configured to transcribe audio streams, i.e. “written record of audio”, collected during the meeting);
generating, within the video meeting, a first chapter corresponding to the first topic and a second chapter corresponding to the second topic, wherein the first chapter corresponds to a first time period of the video meeting and the second chapter corresponds to a second time period of the video meeting (see Surazski; column 7 lines 14-17, column 8 lines 4-8 and column 9 lines 12-14; Surazski discloses a timeline description, i.e. “first time period” and “second time period”, of the meeting, i.e. “within the video meeting”, may include labels, i.e. “first chapter” and “second chapter”, for different meeting portions, such as, identified topics, i.e. “first topic” and a “second topic”. A user may activate any point along the timeline to access a desired place in the meeting. The examiner notes that, according to the applicant’s specification, a “chapter”, may be a label corresponding to a particular topic; see applicant’s specification as filed; paragraph 0054).
While Surazski discloses “generating a transcript…”, as discussed above, and further searching for a specific topic where a word was mentioned (see Surazski; column 3 lines 49-52), Surazski does not explicitly disclose identifying, within the transcript, a first keyword associated with a first topic and a second keyword associated with a second topic that is different than the first topic.
In analogous art, Fahrendorff discloses identifying, within the transcript, a first keyword associated with a first topic and a second keyword associated with a second topic that is different than the first topic (see Fahrendorff; paragraphs 0031 and 0043; Fahrendorff discloses attendees in a video conference and transcribing keywords. In particular, producing a transcript and identifying a keyword, i.e. “a first keyword”, for a main topic, i.e. “a first topic”, under discussion and identifying additional keywords, i.e. “a second keyword”, for sub-topics, i.e. “second topic”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Surazski and Fahrendorff because they both disclose features of recording a video meeting, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the feature of transcribing as taught by Fahrendorff into the system of Surazski in order to provide the benefit of enabling more efficient parsing of a meeting record (see Surazski; column 9 lines 8-12) by allowing sub-topics to be determined using different keywords, and thus identifying useful facts that represent what was discussed (see Fahrendorff; paragraph 0043).
Further, Surazski discloses the additional limitations of claim 8, a system comprising: memory (see Surazski; column 1 lines 41-43; Surazski discloses a memory); one or more processors (see Surazski; column 1 lines 41-43; Surazski discloses a one or more processors); and one or more computer-executable instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors to perform operations (see Surazski; column 1 lines 41-45; Surazski discloses memory including instructions executed by the one or more processors).
Further, Surazski discloses the additional limitations of claim 15, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing one or more computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see Surazski; column 13 lines 53-59; Surazski discloses instructions read from a machine-readable medium for execution by the one or more processors).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Surazski and Fahrendorff disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, as discussed above, and further the combination of Surazski and Fahrendorff clearly discloses wherein the first chapter and the second chapter are displayed in conjunction with the video meeting (see Surazski; column 7 lines 14-19, column 9 lines 12-14 and Figure 4; Surazski discloses a user may skip through portions of a timeline in the meeting. The portions containing the labels, i.e. “first chapter and second chapter are displayed”. In particular, the user may activate any point along the timeline to access a desired place in the meeting), further comprising:
receiving, from a device of a user, a first request to play the video meeting (see Surazski; column 8 lines 15-18, column 9 lines 29-32; Surazski discloses a participant desires to replay the meeting using a selectin tool to play the video, i.e. “a first request to play the video meeting”);
causing, based at least in part on the first request and via the device, a beginning of the video meeting to be played (see Surazski; column 7 lines 14-19, column 8 lines 15-18, column 9 lines 29-32; Surazski discloses a timeline description including labels for different portions, such as “welcome & introductions”, i.e. “beginning”, and the user desiring to replay a portion of the meeting, using a selecting tool, for many reasons, such as, the participant arriving late to the meeting. In other words, when the user arrives late to the meeting the user is able to play the meeting from the “welcome & introductions” portion, i.e. “a beginning of the video meeting to be played”);
receiving, from the device, a second request to navigate from the beginning to the first chapter (see Surazski; column 7 lines 14-19 and column 9 lines 29-32; Surazski discloses the labels for the different portions of the meeting and the participant is able to skip forward, i.e. “navigate”, through the different portions, such as, skipping forward from “welcome & introductions” to “project description”, i.e. “navigate from the beginning to the first chapter”); and
causing, based at least in part on the second request and via the device, the video meeting to be played at the first time period (see Surazski; column 9 lines 12-14 and 29-32; Surazski discloses activating any point along the timeline to access a desired place in the meeting, in which, the selection portion at the point in the timeline is played, i.e. “the video meeting to be played at the first time period”).
Regarding claims 3, and 10, Surazski and Fahrendorff disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as discussed above, and further the combination of Surazski and Fahrendorff clearly discloses wherein the video meeting and the transcript are stored, in association with one another, within a database of the group-based communication platform (see Surazski; column 5 lines 22-25, column 6 lines 11-16 and column 6 line 64 – column 7 line 3 and column 8 lines 8-11; Surazski discloses a meeting support engine storing history log and other data related to a meeting a database, such as, creating a meeting record and a conversation stored in the meeting record, in which there is a transcript, i.e. “the video meeting and the transcript are stored…within a database”).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17, Surazski and Fahrendorff disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, as discussed above, and further the combination of Surazski and Fahrendorff clearly discloses wherein: the first time period occurs between a first timestamp within the video meeting and a second timestamp within the video meeting (see Surazski; column 5 lines 32-34, column 9 lines 12-16, 29-32; Surazski discloses the meeting support engine stores selected periods of time, i.e. “first time period”, and the user may activate any point along the timeline to access a desired place in the meeting, i.e. “…between a first timestamp…and a second timestamp”); and
the second time period occurs between a third timestamp within the video meeting and a fourth timestamp within the video meeting (see Surazski; column 5 lines 32-34, column 9 lines 12-16, 29-32; Surazski discloses the meeting support engine stores selected periods of time, i.e. “second time period”, and the user may activate any point along the timeline to access a desired place in the meeting, i.e. “…between a third timestamp…and a fourth timestamp”).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, Surazski and Fahrendorff disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, as discussed above, and further the combination of Surazski and Fahrendorff clearly discloses determining that the video meeting has concluded (see Surazski; column 6 lines 10-14 and 34-39; Surazski discloses a summary engine for creating a meeting record and making it available. The summary engine identifies different phases of the meeting, such as, “wrap up”, i.e. “determining that the video meeting has concluded”);
generating a summary of the video meeting (see Surazski; column 6 lines 10-14 and column 7 line 67 – column 8 line 4; Surazski discloses a summary engine creating a meeting record which may include a summary of the meeting);
receiving, from a device of a user, a request to view the summary (see Surazski; column 6 lines 10-14, column 7 line 67 – column 8 line 4, and column 9 lines 29-32; Surazski discloses a meeting record, including the summary, being available to meeting participants. A user selects portions of the meeting record to play, i.e. “receiving…a request to view the summary”); and
causing, based at least in part on the request and via the device, the summary to be displayed (see Surazski; column 6 lines 33-39 and column 7 line 67 – column 8 line 4; Surazski discloses the meeting record, which includes the summary, displayed).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, Surazski and Fahrendorff disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, as discussed above, and further the combination of Surazski and Fahrendorff clearly discloses determining, from at least one of the audio or the transcript, that a first participant of the plurality of participants spoke at a first time during the video meeting (see Surazski; column 6 lines 52-58 and column 8 lines 8-11; Surazski discloses knowing what was said by whom, i.e. “determining…a first participant…spoke at a first time during the video meeting”, using the meeting record that includes a transcript of one or more audio streams, i.e. “from at least one of the audio or the transcript”) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen both “audio” and “transcript” alternatives).;
determining, from the at least one of the audio or the transcript, that a second participant of the plurality of participants spoke at a second time during the video meeting (see Surazski; column 6 lines 52-58 and column 8 lines 8-11; Surazski discloses knowing what was said by whom, i.e. “determining…a second participant…spoke at a first time during the video meeting”, using the meeting record that includes a transcript of one or more audio streams, i.e. “from at least one of the audio or the transcript”) (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional features only one feature from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen both “audio” and “transcript” alternatives); and
causing display of the first time and the second time within the video meeting (see Surazski; column 6 lines 33-39 and column 7 line 67 – column 8 line 4; Surazski discloses the meeting record, which includes the summary, displayed. In other words, the “first time and the second time within the video meeting” are in the summary which is displayed).
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, Surazski and Fahrendorff disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, as discussed above, and further the combination of Surazski and Fahrendorff clearly discloses wherein the first topic corresponds to a first participant of the plurality of participants and the second topic corresponds to a second participant of the plurality of participants (see Surazski; column 6 lines 52-58, column 7 lines 14-17, column 8 lines 4-8 and column 9 lines 12-14; Surazski discloses knowing what was said by whom, using the meeting record, and a timeline description of the meeting may include labels for different meeting portions, such as, identified topics, i.e. “first topic” and a “second topic”. A user may activate any point along the timeline to access a desired place in the meeting. In other words, the user is able to activate any point in time of the meeting, such as a portions including a first and second topic, and knowing what was said by whom, i.e. “first topic corresponds to a first participant” and “second topic corresponds to a second participant”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mody et al. (U.S. 2020/0272693 A1) discloses causing playback of a portion of the recorded meeting that relates to its corresponding topic.
Cruver (U.S. 2008/0209330 A1) discloses pre-chaptering gives the ability of chapters and topics of discussion being known prior to the start of a presentation.
Shires et al. (U.S. 8,612,211 B1) discloses one or more topics of a video conference session being detected from a transcript produced from text of each individual attendee.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 09/26/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights