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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/7/2026 has been entered.
Status
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 1/7/2026. Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-22 are pending. Claims 1, 9, 16, are amended. No claims are currently added. No claims are currently cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued “The Office fails to provide any reasoning or rationale as to why the claims would fall into one of these enumerated sub-groupings let alone fall within the criteria for certain methods of organizing human activity. Furthermore, claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-22 cannot be reduce to merely a mental process, as they are not so result-focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s invention is directed to detecting an utterance, communicating an invite permission, receiving permission, communicating an invite, receiving an input, and adding an attendee to the meeting. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures “can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary.” 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of “anonymous loan shopping” recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”). The applicant is using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of “anonymous loan shopping”, which was a concept that could be “performed by humans without a computer.” 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53. The applicant is also performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are “human cognitive actions” that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as “directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging.” 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
The focus of the invention is on organizing the activities and interactions of persons relating to meetings. Scheduling meetings and including pertinent attendees falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping and can be performed as mental processes. Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1325–27 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (a system for controlling access to a platform providing a software services component and an interface component via a security access manager were directed to the abstract idea of controlling access to, or limiting permission to, resources and “[c]ontrolling access to resources is exactly the sort of process that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper,’ which we have repeatedly found unpatentable” (citation omitted)); In re Bongiorno, 857 F. App’x 637, 639–40 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (scheduling a travel itinerary of destinations, tour sites, touring hours, and tour intensity levels were “drawn to organizing human activity, including planning and executing a travel itinerary, in a manner that renders the claims directed to an abstract idea”); In re Downing, 754 F. App’x 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims directed to the concept of personal management, resource planning, and forecasting by collecting and analyzing information relevant to end users recited an abstract idea); Ans. 4 (managing meeting invitations and meeting resources are performed by a meeting organizer or a secretary). The limitations of “communicating an invite permission.. communicating the join-meeting invite to the non-attendee… receiving an input from the non-attendee agreeing to join the first meeting” recites this abstract idea. It collects information needed to schedule the invitees for a meeting. As claimed, this system is recited at a high level of generality without any technical implementation details such that it can be performed as mental processes by persons processing requests to schedule a meeting for a certain group of invitees. See In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (steps of collecting information from various sources and understanding the meaning of that information (such as eligibility for benefits) can be performed by a human using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
The applicant does not point to any evidence that claim 1 recites any unconventional rules, transforms or reduces an element to a different state or thing, or otherwise integrates the idea into a practical application. Rather, claim 1 recites inviting a non-attending to a meeting. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cautioning against claims “so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem”)); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (mere data gathering does not make a claim patent-eligible). The receiving and communicating elements in claim 1 do not add meaningfully to the recited mental steps.
The applicant has argued “Instead, Applicant’s claims are directed to, for example, concrete steps for “detecting, by a meeting monitor without user intervention, in an utterance made by a first attendee of a first meeting, a request made of a non-attendee of the first meeting for input to a topic discussed in the first meeting,” as recited by claim 9. As described in greater detail below, claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-22 provide a particular solution to problems arising in accurately identifying a non-attendee and/or providing an opportunity for the non-attendee to provide real-time input within an ongoing meeting in response to detecting the request for input and do not cover all possible solutions.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is directed to asking a person for information during a meeting. This is a "method of organizing human activity" a classic abstract idea. The steps of listening to a meeting, identifying a request, and soliciting input from a non-attendee can all be performed mentally or with basic pen-and-paper. A human could perform these steps. The steps of the claims merely claim a result and therefore do not claim an improvement to a technical method for performing the steps of the invention.
The applicant has argued “As the Office provides no argument, evidence, or statement that the claims recited merely a mental process or a method of organizing human activities, therefore; claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-22 are not directed to one of the three categories identified in MPEP § 2106.04.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps (operations) of claim 1 (detecting, communicating, receiving, communicating, receiving and adding) can be performed by a human, using observation, evaluation, and judgment because they involve making identifications, determinations, and calculations, which are mental tasks humans routinely perform in the course of scheduling activities. See In re Killian, 45 F.4th 1373, 1379–1380 (Fed. Cir. 2022); MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The applicant has argued, “Applicant submits that the claims recite elements that establish a practical application.“ The applicant likes the claims to Enfish and McRo. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the specification may state that the invention is an improvement to the probability that a correct non-attendee is identified, even for argument sake stating that this is a fact, any claimed improvement would be to the abstract idea. Picking the correct person to invite to a meeting amounts to a mental process and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Enfish involved claims directed to a self-referential table that fundamentally improved how a database was structured and operated, the invention was the technical improvement. McRO involved claims that automated a specific, previously-manual animation process through a rules-based technical method that produced results computers couldn't previously achieve. The critical distinction in both cases was that the claims were directed to improving the technology itself. Here, the applicant makes no improvement to blockchain technology. Applicant’s claims do not propose a new consensus mechanism, improve throughput or latency of blockchain transactions, solve a known technical limitation of blockchain protocols, introduce a new cryptographic type method. Applicants claims are not analogous with either Enfish or McRo nor do the claims follow the same fact patterns.
The applicant has argued the claims in view of Example 48. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 2 of Example 48 recites the same judicial exception as claim 1 but is eligible because the claim as a whole improves speech-separation technology and thus integrates the exception into a practical application of separating speech and is therefore not “directed to” the judicial exception. Claim 2 specifies that the separated audio components are used in a speech recognition system to improve the accuracy of voice commands in a hands-free environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 2 is a method of receiving spoken audio from different sources, deriving a temporal feature representation and a spectrogram of the audio, and using a DNN to calculate embedding vectors based on the temporal feature representation and a spectrogram using a mathematical formula. The embedding vectors are then partitioned into clusters, the clusters are modified using binary masks, and the modified clusters are synthesized into separate speech signals. Anew, combined mixed speech signal is created by excluding at least one speech signal from one source and including speech signals from other sources. The combined mixed speech signal is then transmitted. The difficulty with applicant’s argument is that exemplary claim 2 of Example 48 was deemed patent-eligible because they create a new speech signal that no longer contains extraneous speech signals from unwanted sources. Thus, exemplary claim 2 of Example 48 creates auditory signal data. The broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 3 is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that stores instructions, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the steps of receiving a mixed speech signal constituting audio from different sources by a DNN that calculates embedding vectors from time-frequency representation of the signal. The embeddings are then partitioned into clusters and the clusters are converted into separate speech signals in the time domain. Only one specific separated speech signal of these separated speech signals is converted into text to produce a transcript. The applicant has neither identified nor demonstrated that the present claims provide such a specific technological application.
The additional elements components recited at a high level of generality without technical implementation details. They do not improve computer functions or other technology or technical field. They do not implement the abstract idea on a machine that is integral to the claim. They do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Nor do they apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment. The previous 101 is updated in view of applicants amendments.
The applicant has stated in the arguments that amendments were made to overcome the 112(a), first paragraph rejections. However, the applicant has made a mere allegation about an agreement in an interview which is not supported by the interview summary or by the lack of amendments. The previously claim limitation of “providing… as an input to the neural network the utterance in the real-time transcript and obtaining as an output of the neural network a classification of the utterance as relevant to the request” was not amended in either claims 1 or claim 9. The applicant did amend claim 16, however the concept of the neural network classification of the utterance is still claimed. Therefore, the previous 112(a), first rejections of claims 1, 9, are maintained and the previous 112(a), first rejection of claim 16 is updated but also maintained.
The applicant had amended the claim 1 to include the limitation of “the loss function is used during training of the neural network to indicate an error in predicting meeting intents associated with inviting non-attendees to meetings based on utterances included in transcripts of a training dataset”, claim 9 to include “where the loss function indicates an error in predicting the meeting intents associated with the request made of the non-attendee based on the utterance and the input”, claim 16 to include “wherein the loss function is used during training of the neural network to indicate an error in generating predictions of meeting intents to request attendance to meetings by the non-attendees based on the utterances included in transcripts of a training dataset.” In applicant’s response the applicant amended claims 1 and 9 which did not overcome the previous 102(a), first rejection because the rejected language is still in the claim. With regards to claim 16, the applicant did not amend the claim, or adequately argue the rejection therefore the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-17 of applicant’s remarks dated 8/7/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-22 has been withdrawn. The closest prior art Bender et al. (US 20190305976 A1) discloses monitoring an event by analyzing sentiment and emotion in verbal content, generate a speech baseline for each attendee, i.e., tone neutral vocal communication patterns, determine an aggregate tone for the event, and generating and progressive update, during the monitoring, the value (the value represents deviations in tone from the aggregate tone in portions of the verbal content proximate to an occurrence of one or more keywords relevant to the invitee, based on the aggregate tone and the speech baseline for each of the one or more attendees). Deole et al. (US 20220327494 A1) discloses providing recommendations for attendance modes based on electronic calendar event information. Kumbi et al. (US 20200401880 A1) discloses an attendance optimization system can sequence one or more machine learning operations such as finding a set of individuals within a database that are similar to invitees for the event.
The prior art either alone or in combination discloses each and every limitation of at least the independent Claims. The references do not specifically teach, "providing as an input to the neural network the utterance in the real-time transcript and obtaining as an output of the neural network a classification of the utterance as relevant to the request for input" , "wherein the loss function is used during training of the neural network to indicate an error in predicting meeting intents associated with inviting non-attendees to meetings based on utterances included in transcripts of a training dataset;" , “wherein the loss function is used during training of the neural network to represent an error in classifying utterances as meeting intents to request participation from non-attendees to meetings included in transcripts and contextual information associated with the non-attendees included a training dataset,” and "where the loss function indicates an error in predicting the meeting intents associated with the request made of the non-attendee based on the utterance and the input." Although the examiner has pointed to limitations that are not found in the prior art, it is in the combination of the claim as a whole that causes the previous prior art rejection to be withdrawn.
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 1-5, 7-10, 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 21, 22, are directed to a system, claims 9, 10, 12-15, are directed to a method, and claims 16-20 are directed to a computer storage media. Therefore, claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-22 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 9, 16, recite detecting meeting intent and adding an attendee to a meeting constituting an abstract idea based on “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” The claimed invention is a method that allows for users to invite an attendee that is not currently at a meeting. which is a method of managing interactions between people. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People” which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Claim 1 recites abstract limitations including “detecting, based on a real-time transcript of a first meeting as an input, a request for input from a non-attendee of the first meeting based on an utterance made by a first attendee of a first meeting in the real-time transcript indicating the request for input from the non-attendee of the first meeting, trained with a loss function, operates to enable making predictions of meeting intents associated with inviting non-attendees to meetings by providing as an input.. the utterance in the real-time transcript and obtaining as an output .. a classification of the utterance as relevant to the request for input; in response to the detecting, communicating a join-meeting invite to the non-attendee, wherein the join-meeting invite asks the non-attendee to join the first meeting while the first meeting is ongoing; receiving an input from the non-attendee agreeing to join the first meeting, wherein the input from the non-attendee agreeing to join the first meeting is used in a loss function, wherein the loss function is used during training ..to represent an error in classifying utterances as meeting intents to request participation from non-attendees to meetings included in transcripts and contextual information associated with the non-attendees included a training dataset; and adding the non-attendee as a virtual attendee of the first meeting.” Claim 9 recites abstract limitations including “detecting.. without user intervention, in an utterance made by a first attendee of a first meeting, a request made of a non-attendee of the first meeting for input to a topic discussed in the first meeting, that is trained with a loss function, generates predictions of meeting intents associated with the request made of the non-attendee by at least providing as an input … the utterance and obtaining as an output of … a classification of the utterance as relevant to the request made of the non-attendee of the first meeting for input to the topic discussed in the first meeting; communicating an invite-permission to the first attendee of the first meeting; receiving a permission from the first attendee to send a join-meeting invite to the non-attendee; in response to the receiving the permission, communicating the join- meeting invite to the non-attendee, wherein the join-meeting invite asks the non- attendee to join the first meeting while the first meeting is ongoing; receiving an input from the non-attendee agreeing to join the first meeting, wherein the input from the non-attendee agreeing to join the first meeting is used in the loss function to update … where the loss function represents an error in classifying the utterance as requests for input from the non-attendee and a confidence score associated with classifying the utterance based on the utterance and the input, where the input includes contextual information associated with the non-attendee or the first attendee; and adding the non-attendee as a virtual attendee of the first meeting.” Claim 16 recites abstract limitations including “detecting, from a transcript of a first meeting, a request made of a non-attendee of the first meeting, a loss function to generate predictions of meeting intents to request attendance to meetings by the non- attendees, where the request made of the non-attendee of the first meeting is detected based on an utterance made by a first attendee of the first meeting indicated in the transcript without intervention by the first attendee, as an input to … the utterance made by a first attendee of the first meeting indicated in the transcript and contextual information associated with at least one of: the a non-attendee, the first attendee, meeting information, communications, documents , or any combination thereof, and obtaining as an output of…a classification of the utterance as relevant to the request made of the non-attendee of the first meeting; in response to the detecting, communicating a join-meeting invite to the non-attendee, wherein the join-meeting invite asks the non-attendee to join the first meeting while the first meeting is ongoing; receiving an input from the non-attendee agreeing to join the first meeting, wherein the input from the non-attendee agreeing to join the first meeting is used in the loss function wherein the loss function is used during training of the … to indicate an error in generating predictions of meeting intents to request attendance to meetings by the non-attendees based on the utterances included in transcripts of a training dataset; and adding the non-attendee as a virtual attendee of the first meeting while the first meeting is ongoing.” These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the language of “at least one processor,” covers an abstract idea but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “using the at least one processor,” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from being interpreted as an abstract idea. For example, with the exception of the “using the at least one processor” language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass an abstract idea directed to a “Mental Process” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Dependent claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12-14, 18, 19, 22, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 3, 5, 10, 15, 17, 20, 21, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 9, 16, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is a system comprising “at least one computer processor; and one or more computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the at least one computer processor, cause the at least one computer processor to perform operations comprising: using a meeting monitor, a neural network.” Claim 9 is a method that recites limitations performed with “a meeting monitor, a neural network.” Claim 16 is “or more computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations… a meeting monitor… a neural network.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to detect, communicate, and receive information) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. This type of generally linking is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12-14, 18, 19, 22 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 introduces the additional element of “wherein the operations further comprise transcribing the first natural language utterance from the first meeting to a textual transcript and performing natural language processing of the textual transcript to detect the meeting intents.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 5 introduces the additional element of “wherein the operations further comprise receiving an instruction from the non-attendee to add a virtual presence bot to the first meeting, wherein the virtual presence bot appears in a meeting interface as an attendee.” This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 10 introduces the additional element of “wherein the join- meeting invite lists attendees of the first meeting and includes an image of content displayed in the first meeting.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 15 introduces the additional element of “wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises transmitting a second meeting invite to at least the first attendee and the non-attendee based on a transcript of the first meeting.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 17 introduces the additional element of “wherein the join-meeting invite includes an image of content displayed in the first meeting.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 20 introduces the additional element of “wherein the first meeting is a video conference.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 21 introduces the additional element of “wherein the permission to send the join-meeting invite is provided as an input to the loss function to update the neural network.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 9, and 16 do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, claim 1 is a system comprising “at least one computer processor; and one or more computer storage media storing computer-useable instructions that, when used by the at least one computer processor, cause the at least one computer processor to perform operations comprising: using a meeting monitor, a neural network.” Claim 9 is a method that recites limitations performed with “a meeting monitor, a neural network.” Claim 16 is “or more computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations… a meeting monitor… a neural network.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to detect, communicate, and receive information) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 12-14, 18, 19, 22 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 3 introduces the additional element of “wherein the operations further comprise transcribing the first natural language utterance from the first meeting to a textual transcript and performing natural language processing of the textual transcript to detect the meeting intents.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 5 introduces the additional element of “wherein the operations further comprise receiving an instruction from the non-attendee to add a virtual presence bot to the first meeting, wherein the virtual presence bot appears in a meeting interface as an attendee.” This limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception because it is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent claim 10 introduces the additional element of “wherein the join- meeting invite lists attendees of the first meeting and includes an image of content displayed in the first meeting.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 15 introduces the additional element of “wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises transmitting a second meeting invite to at least the first attendee and the non-attendee based on a transcript of the first meeting.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 17 introduces the additional element of “wherein the join-meeting invite includes an image of content displayed in the first meeting.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 20 introduces the additional element of “wherein the first meeting is a video conference.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 21 introduces the additional element of “wherein the permission to send the join-meeting invite is provided as an input to the loss function to update the neural network.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-22 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 1-5, 7-10, 12-22 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. The applicant has amended the claims to include limitations that are not supported by the originally filed disclosure. The claim 1 includes the limitation of “providing as an input to the neural network the utterance in the real-time transcript and obtaining as an output of the neural network a classification of the utterance as relevant to the request for input”, claims 9 includes the limitation of by “providing as an input to the neural network the utterance and obtaining as an output of the neural network a classification of the utterance as relevant to the request made of the non-attendee of the first meeting for input to the topic discussed in the first meeting; communicating an invite-permission to the first attendee of the first meeting” and claim 16 includes the limitation of “obtaining as an output of the neural network a classification of the utterance as relevant to the request made of the non-attendee of the first meeting.” Although the applicant has the word classification within the originally filed disclosure there is no support for “a classification of the utterance as relevant to the request.” Appropriate action is required.
The applicant had amended the claim 1 to include the limitation of “wherein the loss function is used during training of the neural network to represent an error in classifying utterances as meeting intents to request participation from non-attendees to meetings included in transcripts and contextual information associated with the non-attendees included a training dataset”, claim 9 to include “where the loss function represents an error in classifying the utterance as requests for input from the non-attendee and confidence score associated with classifying the utterance based on the utterance input, where the input includes contextual information associated with the non-attendee or the first attendee”, claim 16 was previously amended to include “wherein the loss function is used during training of the neural network to indicate an error in generating predictions of meeting intents to request attendance to meetings by the non-attendees based on the utterances included in transcripts of a training dataset.” Although the applicant has support for a loss function reducing error in prediction see paragraphs 91-92, the applicant does not have the specific support in the originally filed disclosure for currently amended claim 1, limitations of “wherein the loss function is used during training of the neural network to represent an error in classifying utterances as meeting intents to request participation from non-attendees to meetings included in transcripts and contextual information associated with the non-attendees included a training dataset,” or currently amended claim 9 limitation “where the loss function represents an error in classifying the utterance as requests for input from the non-attendee and confidence score associated with classifying the utterance based on the utterance input, where the input includes contextual information associated with the non-attendee or the first attendee” or previously amended claim 16, “wherein the loss function is used during training of the neural network to indicate an error in generating predictions of meeting intents to request attendance to meetings by the non-attendees based on the utterances included in transcripts of a training dataset.” Appropriate action is required.
The dependent claims inherit the rejections of the claims from which they depend.
Other pertinent prior art includes Achyuth et al. (US 20200358628 A1) which discloses identifying and analyzing users in a virtual meeting. Herrin et al. (US 20190327362 A1) which discloses receiving, by the computer, invitations to attend, by at least one attendee, two or more meetings, and detecting, by the computer, a one or more conflicts between meetings of the two or more meeting. Misra et al. (US 20210056515 A1) which discloses integrate with behavioral insights to provide relevant information for each calendar invitee. Ellingson et al. (US 20140032670 A1) which discloses various features of communication tools that are available that allow users to join in group communication and collaboration. LeBlanc et al. (US 8681963 B2) which discloses communication device for scheduling a conference call. Daredia et al. (US 11689379 B2) which discloses customized meeting insights based on meeting media (e.g., meeting documents, audio data, and video data) and user interactions with client device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270 5389. 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625