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 .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on September 2, 2025. Claims 1, 11-12 and 20 have been amended.
Currently claims 1-20 are pending, Claims 1 and 12 are independent.
Introduction
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2025 appears to be in compliance with the previsions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 11-12 and 20 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 1-20 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 11, Applicant traverses each of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because a prima facie case of obviousness is not properly established for each, at least considering the inherent problems pointed out with the references and further, that the Examiner’s analysis and rational are not adequate to properly support the combination of the references under § 103.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen on page 10-20 in the previous Office Action, the Examiner has set forth in the Office Action by clearly pointed out the paragraph numbers or the column and line numbers of the cited references for the teaching of each limitation as claimed, clearly pointed out the difference(s) in the claims, and explained why the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made by combining the references, which satisfied the requirements for the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection. See MEPE 706/02(j). Thus, the Office Action has established a prima facie case of obviousness for the rejection. "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(claimed alloy held obvious over prior art alloy that taught ranges of weight percentages overlapping, and in most instances completely encompassing, claimed ranges; furthermore, narrower ranges taught by reference overlapped all but one range in claimed invention).
In the Remarks on page 12, Applicant argues that Fahrendorff does not teach or suggest managing, by one or more bots executed by the processor of the gamification system, meetings conducted electronically between the plurality of users in the gamification system based on the business process definitions and statuses, the agenda defining topics and a schedule for the meeting, and automatically updating, by the one or more bots, the meeting agenda while the meeting is being conducted based on the business process definitions, the set of transition rule, and changes in the statuses detected by the one or more bots and based on monitoring, by the one or more bots, of electronic communications between the plurality of used while the meeting is being conducted, wherein updating the agenda changes at least one topic and the schedule for the meeting defined in the agenda as recited in independent claims 1 and 12.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fahrendorff discloses each collaboration device may be monitored to purposefully record, analyze, then track the in-depth meeting contexts, recording and evaluating the context of the meeting (see ¶ 41); meeting typically contain a pane or section for additional information like agenda topics and conference coordinates, the user may input content into a field, and updating the agenda (see ¶ 89-92); smartphones equipped with productivity software can monitor the audio level during key discussions and alert the facilitator that a participant has been identified that may be distracted or is conducting a separate conversation (see ¶ 279), and the activities and situational data of workers and then auto populates their customized avatar with current status and availability. The methods drive status updates based on IOT sensors (see ¶ 309). Thus, Fahrendorff, at least, discloses the smartphone monitors the communication of a meeting and detected that a participant is conducting a separate conversation, and update the agenda based on the changes.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Fahrendorff mentions updating an agenda is based on manual user input, and cannot reasonable be considered to suggest automatically updating a meeting agenda based on monitoring, the Examiner notes that it is not ‘invention’ to broadly provide a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192 (CCPA 1958). Besides, Fahrendorff discloses the system may automatically share the game; and automates the note-taking process (see ¶ 63, ¶ 126).
Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation to one of ordinary skill in the art, Fahrendorff teaches the limitation in the form of Applicant claimed.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 1-11 are directed to a method for managing business processes, which falls within the statutory category of a process. Claims 12-20 are directed to a system comprising a processor and a memory, which falls within the statutory category of a machine.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, claim 1 recites the limitations of “reading a set of business process definitions and status, maintaining a set of transition rules, managing scoring of each user of the plurality of users, managing communications with user of the plurality of users, and managing meetings between the plurality of users comprises generating a meeting agenda for the meeting, and updating the meeting agenda based on the business process definitions”, and dependent claims 2-11 further recite the limitations of “maintaining a task list for each user of the plurality of users, monitoring the task list for each user of the plurality of users, determining whether a completed task exists in the task list for a user of the plurality of users, accumulating achievement points for the user, determining whether an incomplete task exists in the task list for a user of the plurality of the users, initiating a communication with the user, updating a meeting agenda based on the at least one of the completed task or incomplete task, determining whether to provide an update to one or more users of the plurality of users, generating the update and providing the update to the one or more users, determining whether to collect information regarding one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks, generating a survey requesting the information regarding the one or more task, providing the generating survey to the user, and receiving one or more answers to the provided survey, initiating additional communications with the user or updating one or more tasks of a task list for the user, updating a meeting agenda based on the received one or more answers to the provided survey, maintaining a meeting with one two or more users of the plurality of users, monitoring communications between the two or more users, updating at least one of a score of at least one of the two or more user or a task in a task list, determining whether the meeting is following the topics and scheduled defined in the agenda for the meeting, providing a prompt to the two or more user”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed to methods for managing business processes, business activities, and managing interactions between people. Thus, the claims fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitations out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “by a processor”, “one or more bots executed by the processor”, and the term “automatically”. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform the generic computer functions including transmitting or receiving data (e.g., survey, answers) over a communication network. The Specification discloses that “The environment 100 includes one or more user computers, or computing devices, such as a computing device 104, a communication device 108, and/or more 112. The computing devices 104, 108, 112 may include general purpose personal computers (including, merely by way of example, personal computers (including, merely by way of example, personal computers, and/or laptop computers” (see ¶ 31). Thus, merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014). Again, automating an abstract process does not convert it into a practical application. See Credit Acceptance v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites the additional elements of “by a processor”, “one or more bots executed by the processor”, and the term “automatically”. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform the generic computer functions including transmitting or receiving data (e.g., survey, answers) over a communication network. The Specification discloses that “The environment 100 includes one or more user computers, or computing devices, such as a computing device 104, a communication device 108, and/or more 112. The computing devices 104, 108, 112 may include general purpose personal computers (including, merely by way of example, personal computers (including, merely by way of example, personal computers, and/or laptop computers” (see ¶ 31). Taking the claim elements separately and as an ordered combination, the processor, at best, may perform the generic computer functions including receiving, manipulating, and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326-27, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claim reciting multiple abstract ideas, i.e., the manipulation of information through a series of mental steps and a mathematical calculation, was held directed to an abstract idea)). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1-11 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 11-20 parallel claims 1-11—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are 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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fahrendorff et al., (US 2021/0056860 hereinafter: Fahrendorff), and in view of Akifuji et al., (JP 2000067130, hereinafter: Akifuji), and further in view of Hager et al., (US 5317683, hereinafter: Hager).
Regarding claim 1, Fahrendorff discloses a method for managing business processes, the method comprising:
managing, by one or more bots executed by the processor of the gamification system (see ¶ 9), scoring of each user of the plurality of users in the gamification system based on the business process definitions and statuses and the set of transition rules (see ¶ 49-50, ¶ 66-68, ¶ 163);
managing, by one or more bots executed by the processor of the gamification system, electronic communications with users of the plurality of users in the gamification system based on the business process definitions and statuses and the set of transition rules (see ¶ 2, ¶ 10, ¶ 118, ¶ 120-123, ¶ 181); and
managing, by one or more bots executed by the processor of the gamification system, meetings conducted electronically between the plurality of users in the gamification system based on the business process definitions and statuses and the set of transition rules (see ¶ 2, ¶ 6-7, ¶ 27-28, ¶ 51, ¶ 80-87, ¶ 281-297), wherein managing the meetings connected electronically between the plurality of users in the gamification system comprises automatically generating by the one or more bots a meeting agenda for a meeting to be conducted based on the business process definitions and statuses, the agenda defining topics and a schedule for the meeting, and automatically updating by the one or more bots the meeting agenda while the meeting is being conducted based on the business process definitions, the set of transition rules, and changes in the statuses detected by the one or more bots and based on monitoring, by the one or more bots, of electronic communications between the plurality of users while the meeting is being conducted, wherein updating the agenda changes at least one topic and the schedule for the meeting defined in the agenda (see ¶ 10, ¶ 39-41, ¶ 56,¶ 89-93, ¶ 147, ¶ 162-163, ¶ 187-189, ¶ 253, ¶ 275-279, ¶ 308-311).
Fahrendorff discloses the system defines the game templates and the threshold level; and the rules or concepts in the gamification method to prevent the host from progressing to the next item on the agenda until the participants achieve a desired outcome (see ¶ 47-49).
Fahrendorff does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Akifuji in an analogous art for workflow management discloses
reading, by a processor of a gamification system, a set of business process definitions and statuses from a project management system, wherein the business process definitions define a plurality of tasks, each task of the plurality of tasks to be performed by one of more users of a plurality of users in the gamification system, the plurality of tasks defining a workflow, and wherein the statuses indicate a current state of one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks (see ¶ 5-7); and
maintaining, by the processor of the gamification system, a set of transition rules defining processes for transitioning items through the workflow defined in the business process definitions (see ¶ 8-9, ¶ 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Fahrendorff to include teaching of Akifuji in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for data gathering, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Fahrendorff discloses the system for automated gamification includes generating a game for the proceeding based on the one or more keyword using NLP (see ¶ 10); the system may compare or associate the analyzed keyword with the meeting agendas item to identify potential keywords for topic discussion (see ¶ 51).
Fahrendorff and Akifuji do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Hager in an analogous art for automated meeting agender generation discloses
wherein managing the meetings connected electronically between the plurality of users in the gamification system comprises automatically generating by the one or more bots a meeting agenda for a meeting to be conducted based on the business process definitions and statuses, the agenda defining topics and a schedule for the meeting (see Abstract; col. 2, lines 10-41; col. 3, lines 33-46; col. 4, lines 18-32; col. 5, lines 26-41; col. 10, lines 18-36, claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Fahrendorff and in view of Akifuji to include teaching of Hager in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an automatically data processing system, in turn productivity improvement. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Fahrendorff discloses the method of claim 1, wherein managing the scoring of each user of the plurality of users in the gamification system comprises:
maintaining a task list for each user of the plurality of users based on the tasks defined in the business process definitions (see ¶ 5, ¶ 107-109, ¶ 183, ¶ 275-276);
monitoring the task list for each user of the plurality of users based on the current state of the one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks in the business process statuses (see ¶ 41, ¶ 159, ¶ 234);
determining, based on the monitoring of the tasks lists for each user of the plurality of users, whether a completed task exists in the task list for a user of the plurality of users (see ¶ 35, ¶ 45, ¶ 111-112); and
in response to determining the completed task exists in the task list for the user, accumulating achievement points for the user (see ¶ 22, ¶ 45, ¶ 49).
Regarding claim 3, Fahrendorff discloses the method of claim 2, wherein managing the scoring of each user of the plurality of users in the gamification system further comprises:
determining, based on the monitoring of the tasks lists for each user of the plurality of users, whether an incomplete task exists in the task list for a user of the plurality of users (see ¶ 45, ¶ 166-167); and
in response to determining the incomplete task exists in the task list for the user, initiating a communication with the user (see ¶ 171, ¶ 232).
Regarding claim 4, Fahrendorff discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising updating the meeting agenda based on at least one of the completed task or the incomplete task (see ¶ 45, ¶ 91, ¶ 276).
Regarding claim 5, Fahrendorff discloses the method of claim 1, wherein managing communications with user of the plurality of users in the gamification system comprises:
determining whether to provide an update to one or more users of the plurality of users in the gamification system (see ¶ 91-92, ¶ 309-311); and
in response to determining to provide the update to the one or more users of the plurality of users in the gamification system, generating the update and providing the update to the one or more users through a messaging service (see ¶ 267, ¶ 276).
Regarding claim 6, Fahrendorff discloses the method of claim 5, wherein managing communications with user of the plurality of users in the gamification system further comprises:
in response to determining to collect the information regarding the one or more tasks from the user, generating a survey requesting the information regarding the one or more tasks, providing the generated survey to the user through a messaging service, and receiving one or more answers to the provided survey from the user through the messaging service (see Fig. 5; ¶ 61, ¶ 207).
Fahrendorff does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Akifuji discloses
determining whether to collect information regarding one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks defined in the business process definitions from a user of the plurality of users (see page 5, item 2; page 9, item 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Fahrendorff to include teaching of Akifuji in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for data gathering, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Fahrendorff discloses the method of claim 6, wherein managing communications with user of the plurality of users in the gamification system further comprises performing at least one of initiating additional communications with the user or updating one or more tasks of a task list for the user based on the received one or more answers to the provided survey (see ¶ 100, ¶ 118).
Regarding claim 8, Fahrendorff discloses the method of claim 6, wherein managing communications with user of the plurality of users in the gamification system further comprises updating the meeting agenda based on the received one or more answers to the provided survey (see ¶ 91-92).
Regarding claim 9, Fahrendorff discloses the method of claim 1, wherein managing the meetings between the plurality of users in the gamification system further comprises:
maintaining the meeting agenda, wherein the meeting agenda defines topics for the meeting and a schedule for the meeting (see Fig. 6, # 604; ¶ 28, ¶ 43-45, ¶ 49-51, ¶ 89);
initiating the meeting with two or more users of the plurality of users in the gamification system through a messaging service at a time indicated in the schedule for the meeting (see ¶ 43, ¶ 232); and
monitoring electronic communications between the two or more users through the messaging service during the meeting using Natural Language Processing (NLP) of the electronic communications (see Abstract; ¶ 39-41, ¶ 159, ¶ 279).
Regarding claim 10, Fahrendorff discloses the method of claim 9, wherein managing the meetings between the plurality of users in the gamification system further comprises updating at least one of a score of at least one of the two or more users or a task in a task list for at least one of the two or more users based on the monitoring of the electronic communications between the two or more users (see ¶ 2, ¶ 45, ¶ 59, ¶ 133, ¶ 309).
Regarding claim 11, Fahrendorff discloses the method of claim 9, wherein managing the meetings between the plurality of users in the gamification system further comprises:
determining, based on the monitoring of the electronic communications between the two or more users, whether the meeting is following the topics and scheduled defined in the agenda for the meeting (see ¶ 66, ¶ 120, ¶ 166, ¶ 275-276, ¶ 282); and
in response to determining the meeting is not following the topics and scheduled defined in the agenda for the meeting, providing a prompt to the two or more users through the messaging service (see ¶ 53, ¶ 70, ¶ 147, ¶ 181).
Regarding claim 12, Fahrendorff discloses the system comprising:
a communications network (see ¶ 181); and
a gamification system communicatively coupled with the communications network, the gamification system comprising a processor and a memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor (see ¶ 9-10), causes the processor to manage the business processes by:
managing, by one or more bots executed by the processor of the gamification system, scoring of each user of the plurality of users in the gamification system based on the business process definitions and statuses and the set of transition rules (see ¶ 49-50, ¶ 66-68, ¶ 163);
managing, by one or more bots executed by the processor of the gamification system, electronic communications with users of the plurality of users in the gamification system based on the business process definitions and statuses and the set of transition rules (see ¶ 2, ¶ 10, ¶ 118, ¶ 120-123, ¶ 181); and
managing, by one or more bots executed by the processor of the gamification system, meetings conducted electronically between the plurality of users in the gamification system based on the business process definitions and statuses and the set of transition rules (see ¶ 6-7, ¶ 27-28, ¶ 51, ¶ 80-87, ¶ 281-297), wherein managing the meetings conducted electronically between the plurality of users in the gamification system comprises automatically generating by the one more bots a meeting agenda for a meeting to be conducted based on the business process definitions and statuses, the agenda defining topics and a schedule for the meeting , and automatically updating by the one or more bots the meeting agenda while the meeting is being conducted based on the business process definitions, the set of transition rules, and changes in the statuses detected by the one or more bots and based on monitoring, by the one or more bots, of electronic communications between the plurality of used while the meeting is being conducted, wherein updating the agenda changes at least one topic and the schedule for the meeting defined in the agenda (see ¶ 10, ¶ 39-41, ¶ 56,¶ 89-93, ¶ 147, ¶ 162-163, ¶ 187-189, ¶ 253, ¶ 275-279, ¶ 308-311).
Fahrendorff discloses the system defines the game templates and the threshold level; and the rules or concepts in the gamification method to prevent the host from progressing to the next item on the agenda until the participants achieve a desired outcome (see ¶ 47-49).
Fahrendorff does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Akifuji in an analogous art for workflow management discloses
a project management system communicatively coupled with the communications network, the project management system maintaining a set of business process definitions and statuses, wherein the business process definitions define a plurality of tasks, each task of the plurality of tasks to be performed by one of more users of a plurality of users in the gamification system, the plurality of tasks defining a workflow, and wherein the statuses indicate a current state of one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks (see page 2, ¶ 4; page 3, ¶ 7);
reading the set of business process definitions and statuses from the project management system (see page 2, [0005]-[0006]);
maintaining a set of transition rules defining processes for transitioning items through the workflow defined in the business process definitions (see page, [0008]-[0009], page, [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Fahrendorff to include teaching of Akifuji in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for data gathering, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Fahrendorff discloses the system for automated gamification includes generating a game for the proceeding based on the one or more keyword using NLP (see ¶ 10); the system may compare or associate the analyzed keyword with the meeting agendas item to identify potential keywords for topic discussion (see ¶ 51).
Fahrendorff and Akifuji do not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Hager in an analogous art for automated meeting agender generation discloses
wherein managing the meetings connected electronically between the plurality of users in the gamification system comprises automatically generating by the one or more bots a meeting agenda for a meeting to be conducted based on the business process definitions and statuses, the agenda defining topics and a schedule for the meeting (see Abstract; col. 2, lines 10-41; col. 3, lines 33-46; col. 4, lines 18-32; col. 5, lines 26-41; col. 10, lines 18-36, claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Fahrendorff and in view of Akifuji to include teaching of Hager in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of an automatically data processing system, in turn productivity improvement. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 13, Fahrendorff discloses the system of claim 12, wherein managing the scoring of each user of the plurality of users in the gamification system comprises:
maintaining a task list for each user of the plurality of users based on the tasks defined in the business process definitions (see ¶ 5, ¶ 107-109, ¶ 183, ¶ 275-276);
monitoring the task list for each user of the plurality of users based on the current state of the one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks in the business process statuses (see ¶ 41, ¶ 159, ¶ 234);
determining, based on the monitoring of the tasks lists for each user of the plurality of users, whether a completed task exists in the task list for a user of the plurality of users (see ¶ 35, ¶ 45, ¶ 111-112);
in response to determining the completed task exists in the task list for the user, accumulating achievement points for the user (see ¶ 22, ¶ 45, ¶ 49);
determining, based on the monitoring of the tasks lists for each user of the plurality of users, whether an incomplete task exists in the task list for a user of the plurality of users (see ¶ 45, ¶ 166-167); and
in response to determining the incomplete task exists in the task list for the user, initiating a communication with the user (see ¶ 171, ¶ 232).
Regarding claim 14, Fahrendorff discloses the system of claim 13, further comprising updating the meeting agenda based on at least one of the completed task or the incomplete task (see ¶ 45, ¶ 91, ¶ 276).
Regarding claim 15, Fahrendorff discloses the system of claim 12, wherein managing communications with user of the plurality of users in the gamification system comprises:
determining whether to provide an update to one or more users of the plurality of users in the gamification system (see ¶ 91-92, ¶ 309-311);
in response to determining to provide the update to the one or more users of the plurality of users in the gamification system, generating the update and providing the update to the one or more users through a messaging service (see ¶ 267, ¶ 276); and
in response to determining to collect the information regarding the one or more tasks from the user, generating a survey requesting the information regarding the one or more tasks, providing the generated survey to the user through a messaging service, and receiving one or more answers to the provided survey from the user through the messaging service (see Fig. 5; ¶ 61, ¶ 207).
Fahrendorff does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Akifuji discloses
determining whether to collect information regarding one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks defined in the business process definitions from a user of the plurality of users (see page 5, item (2); page 9, item (2)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Fahrendorff to include teaching of Akifuji in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution for data gathering, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 16, Fahrendorff discloses the system of claim 15, wherein managing communications with user of the plurality of users in the gamification system further comprises performing at least one of initiating additional communications with the user or updating one or more tasks of a task list for the user based on the received one or more answers to the provided survey (see ¶ 100, ¶ 118).
Regarding claim 17, Fahrendorff discloses the system of claim 15, wherein managing communications with user of the plurality of users in the gamification system further comprises updating the meeting agenda based on the received one or more answers to the provided survey (see ¶ 91-92).
Regarding claim 18, Fahrendorff discloses the system of claim 1, wherein managing the meetings between the plurality of users in the gamification system further comprises:
maintaining the meeting agenda, wherein the meeting agenda defines topics for a meeting and a schedule for the meeting (see Fig. 6, # 604; ¶ 28, ¶ 43-45, ¶ 49-51, ¶ 89);
initiating the meeting with two or more users of the plurality of users in the gamification system through a messaging service at a time indicated in the schedule for the meeting (see ¶ 43, ¶ 232); and
monitoring electronic communications between the two or more users through the messaging service during the meeting using Natural Language Processing (NLP) of the electronic communications (see Abstract; ¶ 39-41, ¶ 159, ¶ 279).
Regarding claim 19, Fahrendorff discloses the system of claim 18, wherein managing the meetings between the plurality of users in the gamification system further comprises updating at least one of a score of at least one of the two or more users or a task in a task list for at least one of the two or more users based on the monitoring of the electronic communication between the two or more users (see ¶ 45, ¶ 59, ¶ 133, ¶ 309).
Regarding claim 20, Fahrendorff discloses the system of claim 18, wherein managing the meetings between the plurality of users in the gamification system further comprises:
determining, based on the monitoring of the electronic communications between the two or more users, whether the meeting is following and scheduled defined in the agenda for the meeting (see ¶ 66, ¶ 120, ¶ 166, ¶ 275-276, ¶ 282); and
in response to determining the meeting is not following the topics and scheduled defined in the agenda for the meeting, providing a prompt to the two or more users through the messaging service (see ¶ 53, ¶ 147, ¶ 181).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karstens (US 2005/0050061) discloses a method for dynamically updating an agenda to reflect agendas item progress and agenda item order changes.
Wynn et al., (US 2018/0039951) discloses a system configured to perform operations including receiving user input from a user of the first device to change one or more of the agendas items during a videoconference and causing an update to the agenda and the display of the agenda during the videoconference based on user input.
Jorasch et al., (US 2021/0319408) discloses a platform for electronic management of meetings including one or more settings or rules and permit to start the meeting or to modify a particular documents being discussed in the meeting.
Snipes et al., (WO 2015159123) discloses a method of optimizing operation for aggregating gamification data in a work environment.
Henriksen et al., (US 2013/0117060) discloses a system for collaboration and meeting management by determining if changes should be made and automatically generating a meeting agenda from tasks that may be created during mind mapping incorporating.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624