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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In a preliminary amendment, claims 1-10 and 14-23 have been amended and claims 11-13 and 24-26 have been canceled. Claims 1-10 and 14-23 are pending and are considered in this Non-Final Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/17/2023 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. The initialed and dated copy of Applicant’s IDS form 1449 is attached to the instant Office action.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 concludes the limitation “send meeting invitations for the group meeting to the listing of permitted participants that have been scheduled for the group meeting, wherein each of the meeting invitations identifies the group meeting identifier and the event time of the group meeting” with a period instead of a semi-colon. According to MPEP 608.01 (m), “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.” Therefore, the limitations following the above limitation would be omitted from the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 therefore, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with Step 1, it is first noted that the claimed server in claims 1-5; and the claimed
method in claims 14-18 are directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., processes, machine etc.). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied with respect to claims 1-5 and 14-18.
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1-5 and 14-18, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea. Specifically, the independent claim(s) recite(s) (abstract idea recited in italics and additional elements recited in bold):
Claim 1:
A virtual conference meeting server comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing program code executable by at least one processor to perform operations comprising: schedule a plurality of meetings responsive to input from a meeting organizer, wherein one of the plurality of meetings is a group meeting having an event time, a listing of permitted participants, and a group meeting identifier, and another one of the plurality of meetings is a subgroup meeting having a start time defined as a time offset to the event time of the group meeting, a subgroup listing of permitted participants, and a subgroup meeting identifier; and store group meta data identifying the event time, the listing of permitted participants, and the group meeting identifier for the group meeting with a logical association to subgroup meta data identifying the time offset to the event time of the group meeting, the subgroup listing of permitted participants, and the subgroup meeting identifier for the subgroup meeting.
Claim 14:
A method by a virtual conference meeting server for a plurality of meetings, the method comprising: scheduling the plurality of meetings responsive to input from a meeting organizer, wherein one of the plurality of meetings is a group meeting having an event time, a listing of permitted participants, and a group meeting identifier, and another one of the plurality of meetings is a subgroup meeting having a start time defined as a time offset to the event time of the group meeting, a subgroup listing of permitted participants, and a subgroup meeting identifier; and storing group meta data identifying the event time, the listing of permitted participants, and the group meeting identifier for the group meeting with a logical association to subgroup meta data identifying the time offset to the event time of the group meeting, the subgroup listing of permitted participants, and the subgroup meeting identifier for the subgroup meeting.
The above-recited italicized limitations viewed as an abstract idea are certain methods of organizing
human activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance,
mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)). The claims recite steps for scheduling the social activity of a meeting between permitted participants through the use of inputting and storing metadata. Therefore, this organization of scheduling data is a certain method of organizing human activity.
According to Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of bolded additional elements for receiving/transmitting data (e.g., “scheduling the plurality of meetings responsive to input from a meeting organizer, wherein one of the plurality of meetings is a group meeting having an event time, a listing of permitted participants, and a group meeting identifier, and another one of the plurality of meetings is a subgroup meeting having a start time defined as a time offset to the event time of the group meeting, a subgroup listing of permitted participants, and a subgroup meeting identifier; etc.); processing data; storing data (e.g., “storing group meta data identifying the event time, the listing of permitted participants, and the group meeting identifier for the group meeting with a logical association to subgroup meta data identifying the time offset to the event time of the group meeting, the subgroup listing of permitted participants, and the subgroup meeting identifier for the subgroup meeting.”); displaying data and repeating steps is merely implementing the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea in the manner of “apply it”. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to practically apply the judicial exception because they, whether taken separately or as a whole, merely use conventional computer components or technology to receive, process, store and display data and thus do not provide an inventive concept in the claims.
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims only recite the above bolded additional elements. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer for scheduling virtual meetings) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as evidence of generic computer implementation and an indication that the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more, it is first noted in the Applicant’s Specification, at ¶0025, “Figure 6 illustrates hardware circuit components that may be included in the virtual conference meeting server of Figure 1 which are configured to operation in accordance with some embodiments of the present disclosure. Referring to Figure 6, the virtual conference meeting server 100 can include at least one network interface 730 (processor for brevity), at least one processor 720 (processor for brevity), and at least one memory 710 (processor for brevity) storing program code 712. The processor 720 may include one or more data processing circuits, such as a general purpose and/or special purpose processor (e.g., microprocessor and/or digital signal processor) that may be collocated or distributed across one or more networks. The processor 720 is configured to execute the program code 712 to perform operations according to one or more embodiments disclosed herein for a virtual conference meeting server.” The Specification identifier that the virtual conference meeting server utilizes generic computing functions such as, transmitting, receiving, computing and storing information. As noted in the MPEP, the courts have recognized that additional elements that “receive or transmit data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” (e.g. gathering multi-level information in a matrix user structure) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). From the interpretation of the MPEP and the Specification, one would reasonably deduce that the additional elements are merely embodies generic computers and generic computing functions.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 15 and 17 recite claim limitations that further narrow the steps of scheduling a social activity of a meeting by calculating meeting times and transmitting and receiving meeting invitations according to permitted participant metadata, which recites the abstract idea described above.
Dependent claims 3 and 16 recite claimed limitations that also narrow the steps of scheduling a social activity of a meeting by calculating meeting times, which recites the abstract idea described above. These claims also recite steps for storing metadata associated with a scheduled event time, which requires the implementation of generic computer function and does not practically apply the abstract idea or amount to significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2016/0088259, hereinafter referred to as Anderson) in view of Bader-Natel et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2018/0375676, hereinafter referred to as Bader-Natel).
As per Claim 1, Anderson discloses a virtual conference meeting server comprising:
at least one processor (Anderson: ¶133); and at least one memory storing program code executable by at least one processor to perform operations (Anderson: ¶0133) comprising: schedule a plurality of meetings responsive to input from a meeting organizer, wherein one of the plurality of meetings is a group meeting having an event time, a listing of permitted participants, and a group meeting identifier, and another one of the plurality of meetings is a subgroup meeting having… a subgroup listing of permitted participants… (Anderson: See Fig. 12a and step 1201 and ¶0211, 0240-0241, where the meeting organizer initiates the scheduling of a conference. The scheduling of the video conference includes a time and length for the conference and attendee/participant list. See ¶0284 where the process for scheduling a videoconference is scheduled on the web application establishes an event code identifier for the conference. See ¶0262-0263 for subgroup meeting creation with a with defined listing of permitted participants.); and
store group meta data identifying the event time, the listing of permitted participants, and the group meeting identifier for the group meeting with… the event time of the group meeting, the subgroup listing of permitted participants… (Anderson: See ¶0240 where the stored conference information includes event time and length of the conference and attendee list. See also ¶0336 where the system stores conference information with conference identifiers and user identifiers for participants. See ¶0364-0366 where the group meeting identifier has an event time identification stored within.).
Anderson does not explicitly disclose; however, Bader-Natel discloses:
another one of the plurality of meetings is a subgroup meeting having a start time defined as a time offset to the event time of the group meeting… and a subgroup meeting identifier (Bader-Natel: See ¶0101 where the subgroup meeting is a breakout meeting from the main group meeting and has a definite start and/or end time. See ¶0153 where information is recorded and stored with the associated breakout group identifier.).
store group meta data identifying… a logical association to subgroup meta data identifying the time offset to the event time of the group meeting… and the subgroup meeting identifier for the subgroup meeting (Bader-Natel: See ¶0101 where the subgroup meeting is a breakout meeting from the main group meeting and has a definite start and/or end time. See ¶0153 where information is recorded and stored with the associated breakout group identifier.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Anderson with Baker-Natel’s virtual conferencing system that logically groups participants in subgroup breakout meetings because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features for managing breakout subgroups in video conferencing systems, and because incorporating Baker-Natel’s virtual conferencing system that logically groups participants in subgroup breakout meetings in Anderson would have served Anderson’s pursuit of linking participant devices in subgroups in a videoconferencing system (See Anderson, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
Claim 14 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 2, Anderson in view of Bader-Natel discloses virtual conference meeting server of Claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
send meeting invitations for the group meeting to the listing of permitted participants that have been scheduled for the group meeting, wherein each of the meeting invitations identifies the group meeting identifier and the event time of the group meeting (Anderson: ¶0317-0319: The event code for the meeting is processed as part of the meeting invitation. User IDs for permitted participants are collected by the application to check the validity of those entering the meeting. See ¶0240 for the attendee list associated with the meeting.).
c) send subgroup meeting invitations for the subgroup meeting to the subgroup listing of permitted participants that have been scheduled for the subgroup meeting, wherein each of the subgroup meeting invitations… (Anderson: ¶0317-0319: The event code for the meeting is processed as part of the meeting invitation. User IDs for permitted participants are collected by the application to check the validity of those entering the meeting. See ¶0240 for the attendee list associated with the meeting. See ¶0262-0263 for subgroup meeting creation with a with defined listing of permitted participants.).
Anderson does not explicitly disclose, however, Bader-Natel discloses:
compute a subgroup start time based on the time offset to the event time of the group meeting (Bader-Natel: See ¶0101 where the subgroup meeting is a breakout meeting from the main group meeting and has a definite start and/or end time. Examiner notes that a breakout group meeting defines a meeting that “breaks out” from a main meeting. Therefore, the definite start and end time of the break out group meeting would be offset of the event time start, but encompassed within the time interval of the main meeting.); and
the subgroup meeting identifier and the subgroup start time (Bader-Natel: See ¶0101 where the subgroup meeting is a breakout meeting from the main group meeting and has a definite start and/or end time. See ¶0107-0110 where a selected group of participants is determined and invited to a subgroup meeting and the subgroup meeting is connected in the virtual conference. See ¶0153 where information is recorded and stored with the associated breakout group identifier.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Anderson with Baker-Natel’s virtual conferencing system that logically groups participants in subgroup breakout meetings because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features for managing breakout subgroups in video conferencing systems, and because incorporating Baker-Natel’s virtual conferencing system that logically groups participants in subgroup breakout meetings in Anderson would have served Anderson’s pursuit of linking participant devices in subgroups in a videoconferencing system (See Anderson, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
Claim 15 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 3, Anderson in view of Bader-Natel discloses the virtual conference meeting server Claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: reschedule the meeting responsive to the meeting organizer defining a new event time for the group meeting, and store updated group meta data identifying the new event time, the listing of permitted participants, the group meeting identifier for the group meeting with a logical association to subgroup meta data (Anderson: See ¶0074 where a conference and its associated subgroup can be rescheduled for a new event time and the updated group metadata includes the static list of participants in the group is recorded and stored in the event code identifier.)…
Anderson does not explicitly disclose, however, Bader-Natel discloses… identifying the time offset to the new event time of the group meeting, the subgroup listing of permitted participants, and the subgroup meeting identifier for the subgroup meeting (Bader-Natel: See ¶0107-0110 where a selected group of participants is determined and invited to a subgroup meeting and the subgroup meeting is connected in the virtual conference. See ¶0153 where information is recorded and stored with the associated breakout group identifier.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Anderson with Baker-Natel’s virtual conferencing system that logically groups participants in subgroup breakout meetings because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features for managing breakout subgroups in video conferencing systems, and because incorporating Baker-Natel’s virtual conferencing system that logically groups participants in subgroup breakout meetings in Anderson would have served Anderson’s pursuit of linking participant devices in subgroups in a videoconferencing system (See Anderson, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
Claim 16 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 4, Anderson in view of Bader-Natel discloses the virtual conference meeting server of Claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise: send updated meeting invitations for the group meeting to the listing of permitted participants that have been scheduled for the group meeting, wherein each of the meeting invitations identifies the group meeting identifier and the new event time of the group meeting;… (Anderson: ¶0317-0319: The event code for the meeting is processed as part of the meeting invitation. User IDs for permitted participants are collected by the application to check the validity of those entering the meeting. See ¶0240 for the attendee list associated with the meeting. See ¶0074 where a conference and its associated subgroup can be rescheduled for a new event time and the updated group metadata including the static list of participants in the subgroup is recorded and stored in the event code identifier.).
Anderson does not explicitly disclose, however, Bader-Natel discloses… send updated subgroup meeting invitations for the subgroup meeting to the subgroup listing of permitted participants that have been scheduled for the subgroup meeting, wherein each of the subgroup meeting invitations identifies the subgroup meeting identifier and the updated subgroup start time (Bader-Natel: See ¶0101 where the subgroup meeting is a breakout meeting from the main group meeting and has a definite start and/or end time. See ¶0107-0110 where a selected group of participants is determined and invited to a subgroup meeting and the subgroup meeting is connected in the virtual conference. See ¶0153 where information is recorded and stored with the associated breakout group identifier.). …compute an updated subgroup start time based on the time offset to the new event time of the group meeting (Bader-Natel: See ¶0101 where the subgroup meeting is a breakout meeting from the main group meeting and has a definite start and/or end time.); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Anderson with Baker-Natel’s virtual conferencing system that logically groups participants in subgroup breakout meetings because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features for managing breakout subgroups in video conferencing systems, and because incorporating Baker-Natel’s virtual conferencing system that logically groups participants in subgroup breakout meetings in Anderson would have served Anderson’s pursuit of linking participant devices in subgroups in a videoconferencing system (See Anderson, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
Claim 17 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 5, Anderson in view of Bader-Natel discloses the virtual conference meeting server of Claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to the meeting organizer cancelling the group meeting, delete the group meta data and subgroup meta data, and send meeting cancelation notifications to the listing of permitted participants and the subgroup listing of permitted participants (Anderson: See ¶0074 where a conference and its associated subgroup can be rescheduled for a new event time or modified. The updated group metadata including the static list of participants in the group is recorded and stored in the event code identifier. See ¶0284-0286 where a server checks to validate that the event code associated with the videoconference and its subgroup exists and the event is not canceled. See ¶0294 where a user is notified about existing conferences.).
Claim 18 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 5; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 6, Anderson in view of Bader-Natel discloses the virtual conference meeting server of Claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
establish sessions with client devices of the permitted participants among the listing of permitted participants for the group meeting and the subgroup listing of permitted participants for the subgroup meeting (Anderson: See ¶0337-0342 where the streaming server checks to see if a conference is valid in accordance with a user identifier. If it is successful for the respective conference, the streaming server returns a connection to the video conferencing system to the user. See breakout and subgroup sessions in fig. 12c.);
responsive to occurrence of the event time, combine media streams received in the sessions with the client devices of the permitted participants for the group meeting into combined group media streams and route the combined group media streams to the client devices of the permitted participants for the group meeting (Anderson: See Fig. 21 and ¶0365-0370: Responsive to the event time, the streaming server checks to see if a conference is valid. If the conference is valid, the streaming server connects the group of users in a media stream. See examples of the combined media streams in Figs. 22 and 23.); and
responsive to occurrence of the time offset to the event time of the group meeting, combine media streams received in the sessions with the client devices of the permitted participants for the subgroup meeting into combined subgroup media streams and route the combined subgroup media streams to the client devices of the permitted participants for the subgroup meeting (Anderson: See ¶0262-0265 and Figs. 12c-12d for embodiments for combining media streams into subgroup breakout meetings, specifically see embodiment 1272 for the combined subgroup media stream routed to participants of the breakout meeting subgroup. Examiner notes that a breakout group meeting defines a meeting that “breaks out” from a main meeting. Therefore, the definite start and end time of the break out group meeting would be offset of the event time start, but encompassed within the time interval of the main meeting.).
Claim 19 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 7, Anderson in view of Bader-Natel discloses the virtual conference meeting server of Claim 6, wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to a request to move an identified participant from the subgroup meeting to the group meeting, cease the combining of the media stream from the client device of the identified participant into the combined subgroup media streams; and initiate combining the media stream from the client device of the identified participant into the combined group media streams (Anderson: See ¶0259-0263 and Fig. 12c-12d embodiments 1258-1274 for an attendee of a subgroup can request to be removed from the breakout subgroup meeting and combined to the main conference. If there are no more subgroups available for the participant, then the participant is further combined into the main conference media stream of an additional breakout group (embodiment 1282).).
Claim 20 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 8, Anderson in view of Bader-Natel discloses the virtual conference meeting server of Claim 6, wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to a request to move an identified participant from the group meeting to the subgroup meeting, cease the combining of the media stream from the client device of the identified participant into the combined group media streams; and initiate combining the media stream from the client device of the identified participant into the combined subgroup media streams (Anderson: See ¶0267-0269 where a subgroup break out member requested to be moved into a subgroup breakout meeting. The server performs a check to whether the subgroup is active. If the subgroup breakout meeting is active, the requested member is moved from the main conference by ceasing the media stream and moved into the initiated breakout meeting stream.)
Claim 21 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 8; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 9, Anderson in view of Bader-Natel discloses the virtual conference meeting server Claim 6, wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to a request to create a breakout meeting having a listing of permitted breakout participants, for any of the permitted breakout participants presently participating in the group meeting, cease the combining of the media stream from the client devices of any of the permitted breakout participants into the combined group media streams; for any of the permitted breakout participants presently participating in the subgroup meeting, cease the combining of the media stream from the client devices of any of the permitted breakout participants into the combined subgroup media streams; and initiate combining the media streams from the client devices of the permitted breakout participants into combined breakout media streams and routing the combined breakout media streams to the client devices of the permitted breakout participants (Anderson: See ¶0262-0263 for the request to create a subgroup for a subgroup breakout meeting. The request for a newly created subgroup contains a permitted attendee list to form a static group of breakout meeting participants. See Fig. 12c where the main conference media streams are ceased and the breakout group meetings are initiated for the permitted participants.)
Claim 22 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 9; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 10, Anderson in view of Bader-Natel discloses the virtual conference meeting server of Claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise: responsive to a request to terminate the breakout meeting, for any of the permitted breakout participants previously participating in the group meeting, cease the combining of the media stream from the client devices of any of the permitted breakout participants previously participating in the group meeting into the combined breakout group media streams, and initiate combining of the media streams from the client devices of the permitted breakout participants previously participating in the group meeting into the combined group media streams; and for any of the permitted breakout participants previously participating in the subgroup meeting, cease the combining of the media stream from the client devices of any of the permitted breakout participants previously participating in the subgroup meeting into the combined breakout group media streams, and initiate combining of the media streams from the client devices of the permitted breakout participants previously participating in the subgroup meeting into the combined subgroup media streams (Anderson: See ¶0259-0263 and Fig. 12c embodiments 1258-1274 for ceasing subgroups following a termination of a subgroup media stream following the exit status of the permitted subgroup participants. If there are more subgroups available for the participants participating in the previous subgroup then these participants are further combined into the media stream of an additional breakout group (embodiment 1274).).
Claim 23 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 10; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Itoh et al. (US 2005/0198140): To provide a technique for managing members easily and flexibly as circumstances demand. Request information for a service is received from a key person terminal. A service list for the requested service is created based on the request information, and member information is created based on the request information, which are then registered. The member information is transmitted to the key person terminal, and the member application information created based on the member information is received from the group member terminal, which is verified against the member information. In the case where the member application information is judged as being authorized, member information on the group member terminal is created and transmitted to the group member terminal.
Collet et al. (US 2010/0088144): A method of scheduling events includes receiving event data specifying one or more sessions for an event, an event duration that encompasses a plurality of time slots, a respective duration for each session, a respective start time for the event and zero or more of the sessions, and information describing a plurality of attendees; generating a first list of each possible set of time slots within which each session can be scheduled based upon the respective start times; generating a second list by removing each possible set of time slots for each session that is less than the duration specified for the session; individually performing a scheduling process for each session that comprises allocating a respective set of time slots for the session in a schedule, removing each possible set of time slots for the session that is not equivalent to the set of time slots allocated, and removing each possible set of time slots for each other session that includes at least one time slot allocated for the session; and sending a respective electronic message presenting the schedule to each attendee.
Bank et al. (US 2008/0294482): Personalized meeting invitations, which may be used by electronic calendar applications (which may also be referred to as "calendar applications", "calendaring applications", or "calendar scheduling systems"). Using techniques disclosed herein, a meeting can be conceptually viewed as multiple smaller meetings, which are also referred to herein as "submeetings", and a personalized meeting invitation sent to each invitee reflects that invitee's required presence at the meeting or an individual submeeting thereof. Optionally, personalized meeting invitations may also be used for invitees whose presence at a submeeting is optional. When an invitee accepts a personalized meeting invitation, the submeeting is placed on the invitee's electronic calendar, showing the invitee as unavailable during the corresponding time slot for the submeeting. Other people viewing the invitee's calendar can then see an accurate view of the invitee's availability.
Chu et al. (US 10,642,856): A data warehouse storing databases for a plurality of users, including service providers hosting data for other users of the data warehouse may implement a data exchange. The data warehouse to verify identity of users and execute instructions with respect to databases of the data warehouse.
Khan et al. (US 2009/0296608): Architecture employs custom routing tables that facilitate sub-conferences for the main conference session. Sub-conferences in a Voice over IP (VoIP) or AudioNideo over IP (A/VoIP) conference can be created with overlapping sets of sources contributing to overlapping sets of sinks. The custom routing table architecture allows the subdividing of the main routing table into smaller virtual subtables and the configuration of the subtables individually using different corresponding rulesets. These subtables are referred to as groups or conference groups. Each group has a ruleset which defines the routes between sources and sinks of the group. Each source or sink can belong to two or more groups. Thus, the subtables can overlap. Groups and the corresponding rulesets together provide a new way to customize the overall routing configurations in the conference.
Bader-Natel et al. (US 2015/0304607): A virtual conferencing system is described for implementing breakout groups. For example, one embodiment of the virtual conferencing system comprises: a virtual conferencing service to establish audio and/or video connections between the plurality of clients during a virtual conference, each of the clients operated by at least one participant in the virtual conference, the virtual conferencing service further including a state synchronization service communicatively coupled to state management logic on each client to ensure that the current state of the virtual conference is consistent on each client; breakout group selection logic to subdivide the participants in the virtual conference into a plurality of breakout groups, the breakout group selection logic to select participants for each breakout group based on participant data related to each participant and input from a moderator; and breakout group generation logic to generate the selected breakout groups by modifying the current state on each client, thereby causing video and audio streams of the participants to be seen and heard, respectively, only between participants in the same breakout group and by providing breakout group materials and making the breakout group materials available to only participants within the same breakout group.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9334. The examiner can normally be reached 9-2pm ET, M-F.
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 5712705389. 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.
ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/ALLISON M NEAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625