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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2021-157293, filed on September 27, 2021.
In this office action:
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claims 1-7 are rejected.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on October 15th, 2025 have been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
The previously raised claim objection for claim 1 is withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on October 15th, 2025 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, as presented in this office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“… wherein the progress status indicating information of total number of pages of a document already displayed in the agenda currently in progress is notified” should read (Examiner’s suggestion) “… wherein the progress status is indicating information of a total number of pages of a document already displayed in the agenda currently in progress ”
Appropriate correction(s) is/are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a)IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium comprises an organizer terminal apparatus and an information processing server, wherein the organizer terminal apparatus has a microphone for collecting voice data and a camera for capturing video data, and the organizer terminal apparatus transmits the voice data and the video data to the information processing server.”
The specification doesn’t disclose a medium to comprise both an organizer terminal apparatus and an information processing server.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as they depend on rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium comprises an organizer terminal apparatus and an information processing server, wherein the organizer terminal apparatus has a microphone for collecting voice data and a camera for capturing video data, and the organizer terminal apparatus transmits the voice data and the video data to the information processing server.” It is unclear how the non-transitory computer readable medium comprises two devices (i.e., organizer terminal apparatus and an information processing server). Therefore, the Examiners are unable to determine the metes and the bounds of the claim language.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they depend on the rejected claim 1.
In addition,
Claim 3 recites “the document” in “wherein the progress status is information that indicates a ratio of a number of pages of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress to a total number of pages.”
Independent claim 1 recites (A) “a document scheduled to be used in the agenda,” (B) “a document already displayed in the agenda currently in progress.” Claim 2 recites (C) “a document displayed in the agenda currently in progress.” It’s unclear to which document in (A), (B), or (C) “the document” is referring to. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to determine the metes and the bounds of the claim language.
For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets the document in (A), (B), and (C) to be the same. The Application is requested to make a correction.
Claim 4 recites “the document” in “wherein the progress status is information that indicates a number of pages in the document scheduled to be displayed from now on in the agenda currently in progress.”
Independent claim 1 recites (A) “a document scheduled to be used in the agenda,” (B) “a document already displayed in the agenda currently in progress.” Claim 2 recites (C) “a document displayed in the agenda currently in progress.” It’s unclear to which document in (A), (B), or (C) “the document” is referring to. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to determine the metes and the bounds of the claim language.
For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets the document in (A), (B), and (C) to be the same. The Application is requested to make a correction.
Claim 5 recites “the document” in “when a state of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress satisfies a predetermined condition.”
Independent claim 1 recites (A) “a document scheduled to be used in the agenda” and (B) “a document already displayed in the agenda currently in progress.” It’s unclear to which document in (A) or (B) “the document” is referring to. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to determine the metes and the bounds of the claim language.
For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets the document in (A) and (B) to be the same. The Application is requested to make a correction.
Claim 6 recites “the document” in “the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress reaches a predetermined target value.”
Independent claim 1 recites (A) “a document scheduled to be used in the agenda” and (B) “a document already displayed in the agenda currently in progress.” It’s unclear to which document in (A) or (B) “the document” is referring to. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to determine the metes and the bounds of the claim language.
For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets the document in (A) and (B) to be the same. The Application is requested to make a correction.
Claim 7 recites “the document” in “the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress.”
Independent claim 1 recites (A) “a document scheduled to be used in the agenda” and (B) “a document already displayed in the agenda currently in progress.” It’s unclear to which document in (A) or (B) “the document” is referring to. Therefore, the Examiner is unable to determine the metes and the bounds of the claim language.
For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets the document in (A) and (B) to be the same. The Application is requested to make a correction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites in part process steps which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are a series of mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or a mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Process" grouping of abstract ideas. The claim recites in part:
receiving registration of information on a meeting including a plurality of agendas, information on participants who participate in each of the plurality of agendas, information on a scheduled start time and a scheduled end time of each of the plurality of agendas, and information on a document used for each of the plurality of agendas {data gathering}. The “receiving” of information is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data. The claim does not provide any details on how the data is received or any details on the gathered data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “receiving” registration of information on a meeting encompasses gathering data.
receiving start and end of each of the plurality of agendas {data gathering}. The “receiving” is reasonably interpreted by the Examiner as gathering/collecting data. The claim does not provide any details on how the data is received or any details on the gathered data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the claimed “receiving” start and end of each of the plurality of agendas encompasses gathering data.
notifying participants of a progress status while an agenda of the plurality of agendas is in progress, the progress status being based on a display state of a document scheduled to be used in the agenda, the participants being scheduled to participate in agendas subsequent to the agenda currently in progress {reporting} (Human activity).
wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium comprises an organizer terminal apparatus and an information processing server, wherein the organizer terminal apparatus has a microphone for collecting voice data and a camera for capturing video data, and the organizer terminal apparatus transmits the voice data and the video data to the information processing server. The limitation further limiting the definition of the organizer terminal apparatus, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
wherein in the notifying participants of the progress status, only a portion of the participants being scheduled to participate in an agenda subsequent to the agenda currently in progress, but not participating in the agenda currently in progress, are notified. The limitation further limiting the definition of who receives the notification(s), which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
wherein another portion of the participants continuously participating in the agenda currently in progress and the agenda subsequent to the agenda currently in progress are not notified. The limitation further limiting the definition of who is not going to receive the notification(s), which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
wherein the progress status indicating information of total number of pages of a document already displayed in the agenda currently in progress is notified. The limitation further limiting the definition of the progress status, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
wherein the total number of pages of the document already displayed in the agenda currently in process is unequal to a sequential number of a current page of the document displayed in the agenda currently in process. The limitation further limiting the definition of the total number of pages, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element - when executed by a computer to receiving registration of information, receiving start and end of each of the plurality of agendas, and notifying participants of a progress status. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer to receiving registration of information, receiving start and end of each of the plurality of agendas, and notifying participants of a progress status), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As described in MPEP 2106.0S(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of the computer to receiving registration of information, receiving start and end of each of the plurality of agendas, and notifying participants of a progress status to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “wherein the progress status is information on a document displayed in the agenda currently in progress.” The claim further limiting the definition of the progress status, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, and it further recites “wherein the progress status is information that indicates a ratio of a number of pages of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress to a total number of pages.” The claim further limiting the definition of the progress status, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 2, and it further recites “wherein the progress status is information that indicates a number of pages in the document scheduled to be displayed from now on in the agenda currently in progress.” The claim further limiting the definition of the progress status, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, and it further recites “wherein in the notifying participants of the progress status, when a state of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress satisfies a predetermined condition, the participants scheduled to participate in agendas subsequent to the agenda currently in progress are notified as the progress status that the current agenda is about to end.” The claim further limiting a condition for which to notify participants, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 5 is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, and it further recites “wherein the predetermined condition is that a progress level of display of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress reaches a predetermined target value.” The claim further limiting the definition of the predetermined condition, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 6, and it further recites “wherein the progress level is expressed as: a ratio of a number of pages displayed so far to a total number of pages of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress, a ratio of a number of remaining pages not displayed so far to the total number of pages of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress, or the number of remaining pages not displayed so far among the total number of pages of the document displayed in the agenda.” The claim further limiting the definition of the progress level, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 7 is not patent eligible.
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn (Pub. No. US 2018/0039951), hereinafter Wynn; in view of Bentley et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0063543), hereinafter Bentley.
Claim 1. Wynn discloses [a] non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process comprising:
receiving registration of information on a meeting including a plurality of agendas, information on participants who participate in each of the plurality of agendas, information on a scheduled start time and a scheduled end time of each of the plurality of agendas, and information on a document used for each of the plurality of agendas (See Parag. [0003]; receiving, at a device, scheduling input associated with a videoconference, where the scheduling input includes a time for the videoconference and identifiers of one or more participants for the videoconference. In response to receiving the scheduling input, the method generates a record of the videoconference in storage, and determines an agenda for the videoconference including a plurality of agenda items (a plurality of agendas) ... See Parag. [0044-0045]; videoconference content information can be received in some cases or implementations ... The videoconference content information can include, for example, text, one or more videos or images, audio data, one or more slides or documents (e.g., providing various topics or subjects related to the videoconference) ... the videoconference content information can include a document such as a script or description of dialogue to be spoken during the videoconference, and/or ordered subjects or topics having particular users associated with particular portions of the document, e.g., participant users that are designated to present those portions during the videoconference (information on a document used for each of the plurality of agendas) ... one or more suggested agenda items may be determined and caused to be displayed in the agenda creation interface in some implementations. A suggested agenda item can include one or more suggested agenda item parameters (e.g., identifier, order, priority, associated participant user(s), and/or time period duration) (participants who participate in each of the plurality of agendas) ... See Parag. [0066]; an agenda item can be specified with a start time and an end time (e.g. “11:00 am to 12:00 pm”), and the position of the agenda item in the agenda item sequence can be determined by comparing its start/end times with the start/end times of the other agenda items (information on a scheduled start time and a scheduled end time of each of the plurality of agendas). See Parag. [0074]; a notification can be sent to one or more participating users who are designated to participate in the scheduled videoconference. See also Parag. [0007] [0044] [0050-0052] [0055] [0065] [0068] [0071] [0075] [0095] and Fig. 2-3);
receiving start and end of each of the plurality of agendas (See Parag. [0066]; an agenda item can be specified with a start time and an end time (e.g. “11:00 am to 12:00 pm”), and the position of the agenda item in the agenda item sequence can be determined by comparing its start/end times with the start/end times of the other agenda items); and
notifying participants of a progress status while an agenda of the plurality of agendas is in progress, the progress status being based on a display state of a document scheduled to be used in the agenda, the participants being scheduled to participate in agendas subsequent to the agenda currently in progress (See Parag. [0096-0098] and Fig. 3; it is checked whether the current point of progress of the videoconference is within a threshold amount of time of the next agenda item of the agenda ... If the current point of progress is within the threshold amount of time, the method continues to block 314, in which a display of an agenda notification is made (or other type of output, e.g., audio, haptic, etc.). In various implementations, the agenda notification can indicate the expiration of the current agenda item and/or can indicate the next approaching agenda item that will occur in the agenda (within the threshold period of time). In one example, the current agenda item is “Introduction” and the current point of progress of the videoconference has reached a point 2 minutes before the next agenda item “Problem” will become the current agenda item of the videoconference. An agenda notification stating “Next topic: Problem, in 2 minutes” is displayed in the videoconference interface ... the notification is displayed only by some of the participant devices. For example, a notification can be displayed by the participant device of the participant user who is associated with the next agenda item (to participate in agendas subsequent to the agenda currently in progress), e.g., as a presenter of information during the next agenda item ... an output notification can indicate a determined rate of progress through an agenda item or associated videoconference information and/or can include an estimate of an amount of time sufficient to complete presentation of the agenda item or content information at the determined rate of progress. See Parag. [0149-0153]; notifications can be displayed indicating or related to the rate of progress of the videoconference session through the agenda items and/or associated videoconference content ... the system can determine a percentage of content information (e.g., slides from a slide presentation or pages from a document) that have been so far presented (e.g., displayed) (the progress status being based on a display state of a document scheduled to be used in the agenda), and an indication can be displayed of a rate of slides or pages presented per minute in the current videoconference and an estimate of the amount of time suitable to present the remaining content at the current rate. See also Parag. [0007] [0148]),
wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium comprises an organizer terminal apparatus and an information processing server, wherein the organizer terminal apparatus has a microphone for collecting voice data and a camera for capturing video data, and the organizer terminal apparatus transmits the voice data and the video data to the information processing server (See Parag. [0027]; users U1, U2, U3, and U4 may interact with each other via applications running on respective client devices and/or server system 102 (information processing server). In some implementations, the interaction may be performed via a network service, e.g., a social network service or other type of network service implemented on server system 102. For example, respective client devices 120, 122, 124, and 126 may communicate data to and from one or more server systems (e.g., server system 102). In some implementations, server system 102 may provide appropriate data to the client devices such that each client device can receive communicated content or shared content uploaded to the server system 102 and/or network service. See Parag. [0136]; a participant user who is currently speaking is displayed in the main view 1002. The image or video of the participating user can be captured by a camera connected to the participant device used by the participant user, and the speech (or other audio) of the participant user can be captured by a microphone connected to the participant device used by the participant user. See Parag. [0056]; participant users having particular titles (e.g., organizers) can be allocated a particular position in the agenda item sequence and/or a particular amount (or percentage) of time duration for their associated agenda item. See Parag. [0032] [0082] [0092] [0138] [0162]),
wherein in the notifying participants of the progress status, only a portion of the participants being scheduled to participate in an agenda subsequent to the agenda currently in progress are notified (See Parag. [0097]; If the current point of progress is within the threshold amount of time, the method continues to block 314, in which a display of an agenda notification is made (or other type of output, e.g., audio, haptic, etc.). In various implementations, the agenda notification can indicate the expiration of the current agenda item and/or can indicate the next approaching agenda item that will occur in the agenda ... the notification is displayed only by some of the participant devices (a portion of the participants). For example, a notification can be displayed by the participant device of the participant user who is associated with the next agenda item, e.g., as a presenter of information during the next agenda item),
wherein another portion of the participants continuously participating in the agenda currently in progress and the agenda subsequent to the agenda currently in progress are not notified (See Parag. [0097]; the notification is displayed only by some of the participant devices. For example, a notification can be displayed by the participant device of the participant user who is associated with the next agenda item, e.g., as a presenter of information during the next agenda item. Examiner’s interpretation: The Examiner reasonably interprets displaying the notification by only the participant(s) associated with the next agenda item, taught by Wynn, to be equivalent to not notify the participants continuously participating in the agenda currently in progress and the agenda subsequent to the agenda currently in progress),
wherein the progress status indicating information of total number of pages of a document already displayed in the agenda currently in progress is notified, wherein the total number of pages of the document already displayed in the agenda currently in process is unequal to a sequential number of a current page of the document displayed in the agenda currently in process (See Parag. [0149-0153]; the system can determine whether the rate of progress is fast or slow with respect to allocated time of the agenda, e.g., based on a threshold difference in progress rate through the videoconference content information vs. the agenda item (or videoconference) duration. For example, if there are 10 slides that correspond to the first agenda item, three slides have been presented (30% of total) (total number of pages of a document already displayed in the agenda currently in progress), and the videoconference session has reached halfway through the duration of the first agenda item (50% of total), then the system can determine the progress is slow based on the difference of 20% in rate of progress, e.g., using a threshold difference rate of progress of 10% ... If the system determines that progress is fast or slow, then a notification (e.g., alert or warning) can be displayed indicating this status ... notifications can be displayed indicating or related to the rate of progress of the videoconference session through the agenda items and/or associated videoconference content ... the system can determine a percentage of content information (e.g., slides from a slide presentation or pages from a document) that have been so far presented (e.g., displayed), and an indication can be displayed of a rate of slides or pages presented per minute in the current videoconference and an estimate of the amount of time suitable to present the remaining content at the current rate. See also Parag. [0053]. Examiner’s interpretation: The Examiner reasonably interprets the percentage of content information, such as slides or pages from a document (e.g., 30% of total), taught by Wynn, to be equivalent to “total number of pages of the document already displayed in the agenda currently in process is unequal to a sequential number of a current page of the document displayed in the agenda currently in process” because the percentage (e.g., 30% of total) doesn’t indicate a sequential number of a current page of the document).
Wynn discloses wherein in the notifying participants of the progress status, only a portion of the participants being scheduled to participate in an agenda subsequent to the agenda currently in progress are notified (See Parag. [0097], as indicated above); but Wynn doesn’t explicitly disclose the portion of the participants are not participating in the agenda currently in progress.
However, Bentley discloses wherein in the notifying participants of the progress status, only a portion of the participants being scheduled to participate in an agenda subsequent to the agenda currently in progress, but not participating in the agenda currently in progress, are notified (See Parag. [0008]; A server associated with the conference, which can be a discrete server or a device of one of the conference participants for example, can send periodic messages via a protocol (e.g., "start blinking", "end blinking" messages) indicating a status of the call for which the user is being desired. The status can include information such as the number of users connected, whether or not the conference is ongoing, a currently discussed agenda item, ... Optionally, the user can click the button to automatically join the call. See Parag. [0012]; The communication session can be a conference call, video conference, a multi-modal communication session wherein multiple users communicate via different modalities. The indication can be a blinking light on a set-top phone, a visual indicator on a graphical user interface, or other indicator using one or more output type. The indication can change based on content of the communication session, i.e. the light blinks faster when the user's agenda items are getting closer (an agenda subsequent to the agenda currently in progress) or are currently being discussed. The user can press a button showing the indication or associated with the indication to join the conference in one click. See also Parag. [0033]. Examiner’s interpretation: Bentley discloses notifying participant(s) of the progress status of the conference agenda for the participant(s) to join the conference at the appropriate time (i.e., when the user's agenda items are getting closer), where other participants are already participating, which is reasonably interpreted as notifying participants not participating in the agenda currently in progress).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify notifying the portion of the participants of the progress status, taught by Wynn, to include notifying the portion of the participants which are not participating in the agenda currently in progress, as taught by Bentley. This would be convenient to provide a way for people to gracefully join a conference or other ongoing communication session at an appropriate time (Bentley, Parag. [0007]).
Claim 2. Wynn in view of Bentley discloses [t]he non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, according to Claim 1,
Wynn further discloses wherein the progress status is information on a document displayed in the agenda currently in progress (See Parag. [0149-0153]; notifications can be displayed indicating or related to the rate of progress of the videoconference session through the agenda items and/or associated videoconference content ... the system can determine a percentage of content information (e.g., slides from a slide presentation or pages from a document) that have been so far presented (e.g., displayed), and an indication can be displayed of a rate of slides or pages presented per minute in the current videoconference and an estimate of the amount of time suitable to present the remaining content at the current rate. See also Parag. [0007] [0053]).
Claim 3. Wynn in view of Bentley discloses [t]he non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, according to Claim 2,
Wynn further discloses wherein the progress status is information that indicates a ratio of a number of pages of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress to a total number of pages (See Parag. [0149-0153]; the system can determine whether the rate of progress is fast or slow with respect to allocated time of the agenda, e.g., based on a threshold difference in progress rate through the videoconference content information vs. the agenda item (or videoconference) duration. For example, if there are 10 slides that correspond to the first agenda item, three slides have been presented (30% of total), and the videoconference session has reached halfway through the duration of the first agenda item (50% of total) ... If the system determines that progress is fast or slow, then a notification (e.g., alert or warning) can be displayed indicating this status ... notifications can be displayed indicating or related to the rate of progress of the videoconference session through the agenda items and/or associated videoconference content ... the system can determine a percentage of content information (e.g., slides from a slide presentation or pages from a document) that have been so far presented (e.g., displayed), and an indication can be displayed of a rate of slides or pages presented per minute in the current videoconference and an estimate of the amount of time suitable to present the remaining content at the current rate).
Claim 4. Wynn in view of Bentley discloses [t]he non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, according to Claim 2,
Wynn further discloses wherein the progress status is information that indicates a number of pages in the document scheduled to be displayed from now on in the agenda currently in progress (See Parag. [0149-0153]; the system can determine whether the rate of progress is fast or slow with respect to allocated time of the agenda, e.g., based on a threshold difference in progress rate through the videoconference content information vs. the agenda item (or videoconference) duration. For example, if there are 10 slides that correspond to the first agenda item, three slides have been presented (30% of total), and the videoconference session has reached halfway through the duration of the first agenda item (50% of total) ... If the system determines that progress is fast or slow, then a notification (e.g., alert or warning) can be displayed indicating this status ... notifications can be displayed indicating or related to the rate of progress of the videoconference session through the agenda items and/or associated videoconference content ... the system can determine a percentage of content information (e.g., slides from a slide presentation or pages from a document) that have been so far presented (e.g., displayed), and an indication can be displayed of a rate of slides or pages presented per minute in the current videoconference and an estimate of the amount of time suitable to present the remaining content at the current rate (information that indicates a number of pages in the document scheduled to be displayed from now on in the agenda currently in progress)).
Claim 5. Wynn in view of Bentley discloses [t]he non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, according to Claim 1,
Wynn further discloses wherein in the notifying participants of the progress status, when a state of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress satisfies a predetermined condition, the participants scheduled to participate in agendas subsequent to the agenda currently in progress are notified as the progress status that the current agenda is about to end (See Parag. [0096-0098] and Fig. 3; it is checked whether the current point of progress of the videoconference is within a threshold amount of time of the next agenda item of the agenda ... If the current point of progress is within the threshold amount of time, the method continues to block 314, in which a display of an agenda notification is made (or other type of output, e.g., audio, haptic, etc.). In various implementations, the agenda notification can indicate the expiration of the current agenda item and/or can indicate the next approaching agenda item that will occur in the agenda (within the threshold period of time) ... the notification is displayed only by some of the participant devices. For example, a notification can be displayed by the participant device of the participant user who is associated with the next agenda item (to participate in agendas subsequent to the agenda currently in progress), e.g., as a presenter of information during the next agenda item ... an output notification can indicate a determined rate of progress through an agenda item or associated videoconference information and/or can include an estimate of an amount of time sufficient to complete presentation of the agenda item or content information at the determined rate of progress. See also Parag. [0149-0153]; the system can determine whether the rate of progress is fast or slow with respect to allocated time of the agenda, e.g., based on a threshold difference in progress rate through the videoconference content information vs. the agenda item (or videoconference) duration ...).
Claim 6. Wynn in view of Bentley discloses [t]he non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, according to Claim 5,
Wynn further discloses wherein the predetermined condition is that a progress level of display of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress reaches a predetermined target value (See Parag. [0149-0153]; the system can determine whether the rate of progress is fast or slow with respect to allocated time of the agenda, e.g., based on a threshold difference in progress rate through the videoconference content information vs. the agenda item (or videoconference) duration. For example, if there are 10 slides that correspond to the first agenda item, three slides have been presented (30% of total) (a progress level), and the videoconference session has reached halfway through the duration of the first agenda item (50% of total), then the system can determine the progress is slow based on the difference of 20% in rate of progress, e.g., using a threshold difference rate of progress of 10% ... If the system determines that progress is fast or slow, then a notification (e.g., alert or warning) can be displayed indicating this status ... the system can determine a percentage of content information (e.g., slides from a slide presentation or pages from a document) that have been so far presented (e.g., displayed) (a progress level), and an indication can be displayed of a rate of slides or pages presented per minute in the current videoconference and an estimate of the amount of time suitable to present the remaining content at the current rate).
Claim 7. Wynn in view of Bentley discloses [t]he non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program, according to Claim 6,
Wynn further discloses wherein the progress level is expressed as: a ratio of a number of pages displayed so far to a total number of pages of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress, a ratio of a number of remaining pages not displayed so far to the total number of pages of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress, or the number of remaining pages not displayed so far among the total number of pages of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress (See Parag. [0149-0153]; the system can determine whether the rate of progress is fast or slow with respect to allocated time of the agenda, e.g., based on a threshold difference in progress rate through the videoconference content information vs. the agenda item (or videoconference) duration. For example, if there are 10 slides that correspond to the first agenda item, three slides have been presented (30% of total), and the videoconference session has reached halfway through the duration of the first agenda item (50% of total), then the system can determine the progress is slow based on the difference of 20% in rate of progress, e.g., using a threshold difference rate of progress of 10% ... the system can determine a percentage of content information (e.g., slides from a slide presentation or pages from a document) that have been so far presented (e.g., displayed) (the progress level is expressed as: a ratio of a number of pages displayed so far to a total number of pages of the document displayed in the agenda currently in progress), and an indication can be displayed of a rate of slides or pages presented per minute in the current videoconference and an estimate of the amount of time suitable to present the remaining content at the current rate).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. O’Gorman et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0378076) – Related art in the area of meeting management, (Abstract; A computer implanted method of updating a user joining a group after a user-relevant topic has been discussed, the method includes, with a processor operatively-coupled to a memory: identifying the user joining group after a first topic has been discussed in the current session of the group; and determining interest of the user in the first topic, wherein if the first topic is determined to be of interest to the user, providing an automated summary of the first topic to the user.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDELBASST TALIOUA whose telephone number is (571)272-4061. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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.
/Abdelbasst Talioua/Examiner, Art Unit 2445