International Business Machines CorporationDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 18, 20212021000389 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/132,492 04/19/2016 Aaron K. Baughman YOR920150563US1 9256 98841 7590 05/18/2021 Otterstedt, Wallace & Kammer, LLP P.O. Box 381 Cos Cob, CT 06807-0381 EXAMINER MINCARELLI, JAN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/18/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): CTOFFICE@OEKLAW.COM admin1@oeklaw.com docket@oeklaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte AARON K. BAUGHMAN, THOMAS D. ERICKSON, BRIAN P. GAUCHER, and WENDY A. KELLOGG __________________ Appeal 2021-000389 Application 15/132,492 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–20, which are all of the pending claims.2 See Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claims 7 and 14 are cancelled. See Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-000389 Application 15/132,492 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Representative claim 1 recites: 1. A method comprising the steps of: for a given time period, for each pair of a plurality of participants in a meeting, determining, by at least one hardware processor, whether a connection exists between members of said pair by evaluating one or more of a physical proximity of said pair, a visual gaze of said pair obtained via one or more image capture devices, and a text analysis performed on a transcript of directed speech between said pair, the transcript obtained via one or more acoustic capture devices, an acoustic front end, an acoustic model, a language model, and a speech recognizer; for said given time period, for each pair of said participants for which a connection exists, determining, by the at least one hardware processor, a valence of said connection; for said given time period, creating, by the at least one hardware processor, a social network depicting said connections and their valences; for said given time period, based on said social network, identifying, by the at least one hardware processor, at least one faction within said plurality of participants in said meeting, each faction composed of a subset of said plurality of participants who share a common viewpoint, each participant of the subset having a same perspective on at least one particular subject matter; assessing faction dynamics of said plurality of participants in said meeting by repeating said steps of determining said connections, determining said valences, creating said network, and identifying said at least one faction, for a plurality of additional time periods; issuing an alert to a user based on the assessed faction dynamics, the alert comprising displaying a light that indicates a decline in attention span, excessive disagreement, or a change of factions; and responsive to the light display, generating an intervention that generates a fewer number of factions or a greater number of factions. Appeal Br. 22 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-000389 Application 15/132,492 3 REJECTIONS3 Claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 15–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ashour,4 Vijayakumar,5 and Cunnington.6 Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ashour, Vijayakumar, Cunnington, and Byun.7 ANALYSIS Claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 15–18, and 20 Rejected Over Ashour, Vijayakumar, and Cunnington Appellant argues claims 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 15–18, and 20 as a group. See Appeal Br. 14–20. We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ashour teaches a method substantially as claimed except for assessing faction dynamics by repeating the steps, issuing an alert, and generating an intervention. Final Act. 8–11. The Examiner finds that Vijayakumar repeats method steps to reassess group dynamics and update results as changes in meeting contexts occur. Id. at 11. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to incorporate this feature in Ashour to assess meeting participant connections, social networks, and group dynamics as a meeting context or topic changes to reflect the current associations on a current topic as Vijayakumar teaches. Id. at 11–12 (citing Vijayakumar ¶¶ 15, 27, 37). 3 The Examiner withdrew a rejection of claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 4 US 2011/0131144 A1, published June 2, 2011 (“Ashour”). 5 US 2011/0022967 A1, published January 27, 2011 (“Vijayakumar”). 6 US 2011/0295392 A1, published December 1, 2011 (“Cunnington”). 7 US 2011/0292162 A1, published December 1, 2011 (“Byun”). Appeal 2021-000389 Application 15/132,492 4 The Examiner cites Cunnington for issuing an alert by adjusting the display of lighting, sound, and other stimuli when disagreement, confusion, boredom, or disengagement is detected in audience participants/factions, and in response to a lighting display, generating an intervention that generates a fewer or greater number of factions by performing behavior modification, altering the meeting format to break into sub-groups, or changing the topic analysis. Final Act. 12–13 (citing Cunnington ¶¶ 25, 33, 51). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to incorporate these features of Cunnington into the method of Ashour and Vijayakumar to alert a speaker or meeting participants of the need to intervene and change factions during teleconferences, seminars, or other settings where a speaker and other participants cannot accurately interpret the current disposition of meeting participants so that such impairments can be overcome to increase the effectiveness of the meeting communications. Id. at 13. Appellant argues that Cunnington fails to teach or suggest responsive to the light display, generating an intervention that generates a fewer number or a greater number of factions as claimed. Appeal Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 3– 5. Appellant argues that paragraph 25 of Cunnington describes behavior modification by changing environmental conditions rather than generating a fewer or greater number of factions as claimed. Reply Br. 5. Appellant also asserts that paragraph 51 describes control of environmental conditions to affect the reactions or disposition of the audience and stimulate or influence the audience, but it does not suggest controlling an environmental condition to generate an intervention that generates fewer or greater numbers of the factions responsive to a light display as claimed. Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded by these arguments for the following reasons. Appeal 2021-000389 Application 15/132,492 5 A “faction” is a “subgroup or coalition” of “one or more members of the Group who are allied with one another, and who are distinct from one or more other members of the Group.” Spec. 3:19–21 (“Factions may shift over time”). A faction can be a “set of people in agreement” (id. at 8:15–16) or “a set of people who are in mutual agreement and in disagreement with other factions” (id. at 22:22–23). The Examiner correctly finds that Cunnington issues alerts in the form of displaying lighting adjustments when the system detects disagreement, confusion, boredom, or disengagement in an audience. Cunnington ¶¶ 25, 33, 51; Ans. 12–13. Cunnington’s alerts display lighting changes to indicate declines in attention span or excessive disagreement as claimed. See Spec. 21:1–5 (lighting indicates declines in attention span, excessive disagreement, or faction creation as feedback to a host or room); Cunnington ¶¶ 25, 33, 51. The Examiner correctly finds that Cunnington intervenes as lighting adjustments indicate declines in attention spans, disagreement, or a change of factions. Ans. 4. Interventions include behavior modification to reduce disagreement, boredom, or disengagement in an audience. Cunnington ¶ 25. Thus, behavior modifications reduce factions resulting from disagreement or disengagement. Cunnington divides audiences into sub-groups and changes topic analysis. Id. ¶ 51. These interventions change the audience factions after the lighting changes. Id. ¶¶ 50, 51; Spec. 3:19–21, 8:1–16, 22:22–23. The Specification describes interventions as encouraging temporary factions to explore different positions and encouraging activities such as time-outs, topic changes, coffee breaks, and trust-building exercises to change factions that appear to have hardened. Spec. 24:25–26:2. Cunnington’s changes in topic analysis similarly attempt to decrease or alter factions as claimed. Appeal 2021-000389 Application 15/132,492 6 Breaking audiences into sub-groups as Cunnington teaches (id. ¶ 51) increases the number of factions as claimed. The Specification defines a faction as a subgroup that is distinct from other members of a group (Spec. 3:19–21) and an intervention as the encouragement of temporary factions to explore different positions (id. 24:25–25:2). Changing topic analysis and forming sub-groups of meeting participants in response to a lighting alert (Cunnington ¶¶ 50, 51) similarly changes the factions as claimed where the Specification describes interventions as including “topic changes” (Spec. 24:29–25:2) and factions as sub-groups of a larger group (id. 3:19–21). Appellant argues that Ashour’s failure to teach “assessing faction dynamics of said plurality of participants in said meeting by repeating said steps” is not a case of mere duplication. Appeal Br. 16. This argument misperceives the rejection, which relies on Vijayakumar to teach repeating method steps to determine group dynamics in order to update the results dynamically “when a change in meeting context is detected.” Final Act. 11. The Examiner is not duplicating the steps of Ashour. See Ans. 4–5. Appellant further contends that while Vijayakumar may repeat steps to rate participants by expertise, Vijayakumar does not assess the faction dynamics of meeting participants where each faction is composed of a subset of participants who share a common viewpoint and share a perspective on a particular subject. Appeal Br. 16. This argument is not persuasive for two reasons. First, the Examiner relies on Ashour to teach identifying at least one faction of the plurality of participants in a meeting where each faction is composed of a subset of the participants who share a common viewpoint and have the same perspective on a particular subject matter. Final Act. 10; see Ans. 5 (Ashour is relied on to teach determination of faction dynamics). Appeal 2021-000389 Application 15/132,492 7 Second, Vijayakumar is not as limited in its teachings. Vijayakumar calculates degrees of association of meeting participants based on their level of expert knowledge (Vijayakumar ¶ 15) and their personal and professional relationships (id. ¶ 27). Determining relationships assesses the connections and faction dynamics of participants as claimed. See Spec. 3:19–21, 8:1–15. Vijayakumar regenerates associations as meeting topics change to indicate changes in participants’ associations, connections, and factions as meeting topics change and their views may differ on different topics to place them in different factions for different topics. Vijayakumar ¶¶ 15, 27. Thus, regenerated degrees of association reflect factions on a current topic and provide insights into participants’ views (agreement) on each topic. Id. ¶ 27. The Summary of Claimed Subject Matter cites page 7, line 10 to page 8, line 3 as supporting participant common viewpoints and perspectives on subject matter. Supp. Appeal Brief 2, filed May 7, 2020.8 This disclosure merely describes identifying meeting participants through video and speaker recognition and monitoring their gazes, pupil dilation, interactional distance, body orientation, position relative to the group, gestures, interpersonal distance, and interactional synchrony. Spec. 7:10–8:3. No description is provided for identifying factions by common viewpoint or perspective on a particular subject matter. When this limitation is interpreted in light of what is described in the Specification, it encompasses the definition of “faction” as members who are allied with one another, in agreement, and distinct from other members of a group (Spec. 3:19–21, 22:22–23), and such factions may shift over time (id. at 3:21). Vijayakumar measures such member factions by their connections and their faction shifts over time as topics change. 8 All other citations to Appeal Brief cite the Appeal Brief filed April 2, 2020. Appeal 2021-000389 Application 15/132,492 8 The Examiner correctly finds that Vijayakumar reassesses the faction dynamics of meeting participants who are allied with one another based on their degrees of association and personal and professional relationships. See Vijayakumar ¶¶ 15, 27; Ans. 5. Vijayakumar also teaches that such faction dynamics change based on meeting content and context such that factional relationships must be reassessed and updated as the context of the meeting changes. A skilled artisan would understand that faction changes due to topic changes result from participant viewpoints and perspectives on subject matter as claimed. Vijayakumar ¶¶ 15, 27. The Examiner correctly reasons that a skilled artisan would have been motivated by this teaching to modify Ashour to reassess factions for similar benefits by repeating Ashour’s steps of assessing personal connections and social networks of participants at other times to account for changes in the meeting context that may impact on the measured connections and networks as Vijayakumar teaches. Final Act. 11–12; Ans. 5–6; KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appellant presents a similar argument that Vijayakumar associates meeting participants based on personal and professional relationships and expertise in the present context but such associations are not based on a common viewpoint or perspective on particular subject matter as claimed. Appeal Br. 17–18. As discussed above, this argument attacks the references individually where the Examiner relies on their combined teachings. Ans. 6. Moreover, when interpreted in light of the Specification, Vijayakumar’s reassessment of participants’ factions based on personal and professional relationships and expertise as topics change encompasses their viewpoints and perspectives that change their factions for different topics. Vijayakumar ¶¶ 15, 27; see Spec. 3:19–21 (groups allied as factions change with topic). Appeal 2021-000389 Application 15/132,492 9 Finally, Appellant challenges the Examiner’s finding that Ashour analyzes whether participants agree or disagree on a subject as a way to detect connections between participants. Appeal Br. 18–19; Reply Br. 10. Appellant argues that this analytics is not used to cluster participants into sub-groups. Appeal Br. 19. Ashour focuses on calculating the connection strengths between two participants. One of the ways that Ashour determines a connection strength between two or more participants is the extent to which participants agree or disagree on a particular subject. Ashour ¶ 50. Participants who share the same view on a subject are determined to have a stronger connection to one another. Id. Ashour teaches that participants in a sub-activity are clustered into sub-groups that indicate their connection strengths. Id. ¶¶ 32, 44. Ashour identifies factions (sub-groups) of participants based on their connection strength, and measures connection strength based on participant agreement/disagreement on a subject as claimed. Indeed, the Specification describes a faction as a set of people in agreement and groups that are allied with one another and distinct from other members. Spec. 3:19–20, 8:1–16. The Examiner reasonably determines that members who agree on a subject share the same viewpoint as claimed, and thus form a faction. Furthermore, claim 1 does not require clustering the individuals into a sub-group. Ans. 6. Even so, Ashour clusters participants into sub-groups based on the strength of their connections as evidenced by their participation in sub-activities as detected by speech analysis and topic detection. Ashour ¶¶ 31, 32, 44. The Examiner correctly finds that Ashour measures participants’ agreement on a topic to determine the strength of their connections (id. ¶ 50) and identifies connection strengths based on sub-group factions (id. ¶¶ 31, 32, 44). Appeal 2021-000389 Application 15/132,492 10 The Specification confirms that factions includes participants who agree on a subject. “A distinction should be made between members of a faction (i.e. set of people in agreement), and a set of people in proximity.” Spec. 8:15–16. Thus, interactional synchrony can be used as evidence for agreement and positive connections. Id. at 8:1–3. Ashour forms sub-groups of participants based on the strength of their connections as evidenced by their agreement or disagreement on a particular subject or their participation in a clustered sub-activity. Ashour ¶¶ 32, 44, 50. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2–4, 6, 8– 11, 13, 15–18, and 20, which fall with claim 1. Claims 5, 12, and 19 Rejected Over Ashour, Vijayakumar, Cunnington, and Byun Appellant argues claims 5, 12, and 19 are patentable because they depend from claims 1, 8, and 15. Appeal Br. 20. Because we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15, this argument is not persuasive and we also sustain the rejection of claims 5, 12, and 19. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6, 8–11, 13, 15–18, 20 103 Ashour, Vijayakumar, Cunnington 1–4, 6, 8– 11, 13, 15– 18, 20 5, 12, 19 103 Ashour, Vijayakumar, Cunnington, Byun 5, 12, 19 Overall Outcome 1–6, 8–13, 15–20 Appeal 2021-000389 Application 15/132,492 11 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation