DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the patent application filed 9 August 2022. It is noted that this application benefits from Foreign Application Serial No. 2022-007720 (Japan) filed 21 January 2022. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) filed 9 August 2022 and 29 October 2025 have been entered and considered. Claims 1-14 are pending.
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.
[3] Claims 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05). Claim(s) 1-14 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 13, and 14 are directed to an apparatus, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium computer-executable instructions, and a method, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 13, and 14 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 14, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of managing schedules including analyzing schedule information and conversational activity information associated with users to determine a time for a meeting, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity. In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed consists of a series of steps/functions in which through which a proposed meeting time/window is evaluated in consideration of an existing schedule information and conversational activity associated with a user and a meeting is scheduled or adjusted in accordance with the analysis, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., scheduling interactions/meetings among participants).
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 14. In particular, claim 14 includes:
“…receiving an instruction to produce a meeting notice; acquire a schedule of a participant of a meeting, the schedule arranged within a meeting time of the meeting; if the participant is occupied during the meeting time, acquiring log information on a conversation that the participant has made…displaying information indicating whether holding of the meeting is possible during the meeting time…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 14 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of managing schedules including analyzing schedule information and conversational activity information associated with users to determine a time for a meeting, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., scheduling interactions/meetings among participants) (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further limitations are directed to ineligible processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to the implementation of steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 14 recites:
“…if the participant is occupied during the meeting time…analyzing the log information on the conversation…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited “application” (claims 1, 13, and 14) and/or “computer/processor(s)” and “programs/instructions” (claims 1 and 13), one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be relied upon to observe and analyze calendar/schedule information and content of conversations to determine/infer whether an individual is available for a meeting are practicable/performable by a employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Claims 1, 13, and 14 recite technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional technical elements of claim 14 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “messenger application”. Claim 14 further recites a step of “displaying” information indicating whether holding of a meeting is possible. While the claimed “displaying” does not reference or recite a particular technological element associated with the act of “displaying” information, in the interest of expediting prosecution, Examiner assumes the “displaying” is performed utilizing a computer display. Claims 1 and 13, directed to an apparatus and non-transitory computer-readable medium introduce a “processor/computer” and processor-executable “programs/instructions” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “processor/computer” and “programs/instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “messenger application” is identified as providing conversation log information.
(3) The “displaying” is identified as displaying (i) information as to whether a meeting is possible; (ii) content of a conversation (claims 2 and 3); and (iii) alternative meeting times (claims 8 and 9).
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., instructions/notifications are received, meeting times and schedules are acquired, conversational logs are acquired and analyzed, determination as to whether a meeting at a time is possible is made based on the analysis, information is displayed, and meeting times are adjusted and meetings are scheduled etc.) as associated with a respective “processor/computer”, “programs/instructions” and “applications/displays”. Beyond the general statement that information is gathered, analyzed, and displayed, the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “processor/computer”, “programs/instructions” and “applications/displays” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a computer” or “processor configured to”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., notifications/instructions and determinations); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., schedules); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., determinations and to whether a meeting is possible); and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., analyzing schedule information and conversations to determine whether meetings are possible and/or adjusting a time for a meeting) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 14 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of managing schedules including analyzing schedule information and conversational activity information associated with users to determine a time for a meeting using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed managing schedules including analyzing schedule information and conversational activity information associated with users to determine a time for a meeting benefit from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes Fig. 1 and pages 7-9. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “processor/computer” and “programs/instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “messenger application” is identified as providing conversation log information.
(3) The “displaying” is identified as displaying (i) information as to whether a meeting is possible; (ii) content of a conversation (claims 2 and 3); and (iii) alternative meeting times (claims 8 and 9).
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., notifications/instructions and determinations); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., schedules); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., determinations and to whether a meeting is possible); and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., analyzing schedule information and conversations to determine whether meetings are possible and/or adjusting a time for a meeting).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of managing schedules including analyzing schedule information and conversational activity information associated with users to determine a time for a meeting. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., managing schedules including analyzing schedule information and conversational activity information associated with users to determine a time for a meeting, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of managing schedules including analyzing schedule information and conversational activity information associated with users to determine a time for a meeting benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: 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; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network 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); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 1 and 13, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-12, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
[4] Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0169418 hereinafter ‘Singh’) in view of Gorzela et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0137472 hereinafter ‘Gorzela’)
With respect to claim 1, Singh discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a processor configured to: receive an instruction to produce a meeting notice (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0009] [0016] [0032]; See at least messenger/conversation application analyzes conversation log to generate invitation notices to invite additional participants); acquire a schedule of a participant of a meeting, the schedule arranged within a meeting time of the meeting (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0043] [0047] [0094]-[0096]; See at least system applies user status manager and language model to analyze interactions with conversation applications and further accesses calendar data to determine availability of additional participants for the meeting time); if the participant is occupied during the meeting time, acquire log information on a conversation that the participant has made using a messenger application (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0091] [0095] [0097]-[0098]; See at least determination of availability and status where status is determined based on obtained system interaction information including current and previous interactions with messaging/conversation applications, i.e., log information); and by analyzing the log information on the conversation, display information indicating whether holding of the meeting is possible during the meeting time (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0103]-[0105] Figs. 7A and 7B; See at least analysis of conversation and system interactions to determine applicability of additional participant. See further determination of availability conditions for additional participant. See generation of displays of whether the additional participant can join the meeting presently and/or when available in the future).
With respect to the acquisition of log information of the participant, Singh discloses analysis of interactions via messenger/conversation application to generate a log of communications. Singh further discloses that assessing the prospective invitee/participant availability includes assessment of current status and previous participant interactions with the messenger/conversation application, i.e., a log. Accordingly, while Singh reasonably discloses accessing logs and conversational content of a current conversation/meeting and previous meeting communications, Singh fails to expressly state that content from the additional participant or invitee conversational logs are displayed to assess relative availability.
However, as evidenced by Gorzela, it is well-known in the calendar-based scheduling art to analyze content of messenger or conversational application logs to predict or estimate user availability for upcoming meetings (Gorzela et al.; paragraphs [0024]-[0027] [0044]-[0046]]; See at least recognition of phrases within dialog to indicate/estimate conclusion of meeting and associated availability of participants in subsequent scheduled meetings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the content extraction and analysis from the conversation meeting log features of Singh by further including specific analysis of content associated with extracted conversational logs from a prospective invitee to determine availability as taught by Gorzela. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of analyzing messenger or communication interactions to asses availability of meeting participants. As Singh disclose the use of content extraction and analysis from the conversation meeting log in the context of a system and method for analyzing messenger or communication interactions to asses availability of meeting participants and Gorzela similarly discloses the utility of specific analysis of content associated with extracted conversational logs from a prospective invitee to determine availability in the context of a system and method for analyzing messenger or communication interactions to asses availability of meeting participants, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of avoiding negative consequences of interrupting ongoing meetings and discussion due to scheduling requirements of participants, thereby improving meeting efficiency and flow of ideas (Gorzela et al.; paragraphs [0003]-[0004]).
With respect to claim 2, Singh discloses an information processing apparatus wherein the processor is configured to, if the holding of the meeting is possible during the meeting time, display, out of the log information on the conversation, at least contents of the conversation that provide a basis that determines that the holding of the meeting is possible (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0103]-[0105] [0108] Figs. 7A and 7B; See at least determination of availability of participants. See also extracted topic of the meeting ‘workspace integration’ from the conversational log. See further interface displays of the information and invitation. See further calendar meting request option prepopulates the request with information related to the conversation logs).
With respect to claim 3, Singh discloses an information processing apparatus wherein the processor is configured to display an indication that the holding of the meeting during the meeting time is possible if referencing the schedule of the participant determines that the holding of the meeting during the meeting time is difficult and when the analyzing of the log information determines that the schedule of the participant during the meeting time is adjustable (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0103]-[0105] Figs. 7A and 7B; See at least options to invite the additional participant immediately, when available, or schedule a meeting in the calendar. These settings are reasonably forms of determining from the system interaction and associated current status information that the meeting time is adjustable and adjusted by the selection option).
With respect to claim 4, Singh discloses an information processing apparatus wherein the processor is configured to arrange the meeting during the meeting time by adjusting the schedule that is determined to be adjustable (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0103]-[0105] Figs. 7A and 7B; See at least options to invite the additional participant immediately, when available, or schedule a meeting in the calendar. These settings are reasonably forms of determining from the system interaction and associated current status information that the meeting time is adjustable and adjusted by the selection option).
With respect to claim 5, Singh discloses an information processing apparatus wherein the processor is configured to delete the schedule if the analyzing of the log information detects the schedule that does not permit the meeting to be held as arranged during the meeting time (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0103]-[0105] Figs. 7A and 7B; See at least options to invite the additional participant immediately, when available, or schedule a meeting in the calendar. See cancel meeting option).
With respect to claim 6, Singh discloses an information processing apparatus wherein the processor is configured to modify a planned time of the schedule if the analyzing of the log information detects the schedule that permits the planned time during the meeting time to be modified (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0103]-[0105] Figs. 7A and 7B; See at least options to invite the additional participant immediately, when available, or schedule a meeting in the calendar. These settings are reasonably forms of determining from the system interaction and associated current status information that the meeting time is adjustable and adjusted by the selection option).
With respect to claim 7, Singh discloses an information processing apparatus wherein the processor is configured to shorten a time length of the schedule during the meeting time if the analyzing of the log information detects the schedule that permits the time length of the schedule to be shortened (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0091] [0095] [0097]-[0098]; See at least determination of availability and status where status is determined based on obtained system interaction information including current and previous interactions with messaging/conversation applications. See further determinations of time and duration of interactions and meetings).
With respect to claim 8, Singh discloses an information processing apparatus wherein the processor is configured to, if the analyzing of the log information determines that the holding of the meeting during the meeting time is difficult, display alternative meeting time throughout which the holding of the meeting is possible (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0043] [0096]-[0099] [0105] and Figs. 7a and 7B; See at least assessments of availability including assessments of unavailable and uninterruptible, i.e., meeting is or isn’t difficult at the requested time. See further options to join, join when available, schedule at an alternative time, or decline/cancel meeting).
With respect to claim 9, Singh discloses an information processing apparatus wherein the processor is configured to display an indication that the holding of the meeting during the meeting time is possible if referencing the schedule of the participant determines that the holding of the meeting during the meeting time is difficult and when the holding of the meeting is determined to be possible with a modification introduced in a condition to hold the meeting specified in the instruction to produce the meeting notice (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0096]-[0099] [0103]-[0105] [0108] Figs. 7A and 7B; See at least determination of availability of participants. See further interface displays of the information and invitation. See calendar meeting request option prepopulates the request with information related to the conversation logs. See further options to join, join when available, schedule at an alternative time, or decline/cancel meeting).
With respect to claim 10, Singh discloses an information processing apparatus wherein the processor is configured to shorten a time length of the meeting time if the analyzing of the log information determines that shortening the time length of the meeting time of the meeting is possible (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0096]-[0099] [0103]-[0105] [0108] Figs. 7A and 7B; See at least determination of availability of participants. See further interface displays of the information and invitation. See calendar meeting request option prepopulates the request with information related to the conversation logs. See further options to join, join when available, schedule at an alternative time, or decline/cancel meeting).
With respect to claim 11, Singh discloses an information processing apparatus wherein the processor is configured to change the participant of the meeting if the analyzing of the log information determines that changing the participant is possible (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0032] [0104]-[0107]; See at least options to invite participants based on availability, i.e., changing to an available participant that meets the expertise profile).
With respect to claim 12, Singh discloses an information processing apparatus wherein the processor is configured to adjust the meeting time of the meeting if the referencing of the schedule of the participant determines that the holding of the meeting during the meeting time is possible and when the analyzing of the log information detects the schedule of the participant during the meeting time (Singh et al.; paragraphs [0096]-[0099] [0103]-[0105] [0108] Figs. 7A and 7B; See at least determination of availability of participants including referencing calendar application. See further interface displays of the information and invitation. See calendar meeting request option prepopulates the request with information related to the conversation logs. See further options to join, join when available, schedule at an alternative time, or decline/cancel meeting).
[5] Claims 13-14 substantially repeat the subject matter addressed above with respect to claim 1 as directed to performed method/process and enabling computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions. With respect to these elements, Singh discloses performance of the method/process steps employing the enabling systems and executable instructions (See at least Singh paragraphs [0034]-[0040]). Accordingly, claims 13-14 are rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
[6] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited NON-PATENT Literature:
Nawi et al., Context Aware Instant Messenger with Integrated Scheduling Planner, 2012-06-01, 2012 International Conference on Computer & Information Science (ICCIS) (Volume: 2, 2012, Page(s): 900-907): Relevant Teachings: Nawi discloses a system/method that provides an instant messenger application that displays user availability status. The publication establishes at least using an enhanced availability status and messenger communications to assist in scheduling future or current meetings as common practice in the art.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Kilicoglu et al., MEETING LOCATION AND TIME SCHEDULER, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0264376: Relevant Teachings: Kilicoglu discloses a system/method that provides assessment of attendee availability for a meeting. The system/method analyzes conversational data to assess availability.
Rakshit et al., INTELLIGENT SENDING OF AN AUTOMATIC EVENT INVITE BASED ON IDENTIFIED CANDIDATE CONTENT, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0042947: Relevant Teachings: Rakshit discloses a system/method that provides for automated generation of meeting invitations based a determined availability. The system/method includes a cognitive engine that analyzes participant communications to assist with determining availability.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625