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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 24, 2025 has been entered.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 8, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites an apparatus for managing virtual meetings. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites the method for an apparatus for managing virtual meetings. The claim recites the steps: identifying a time period in which the first user is not currently in an online meeting…, identifying one or more second users who are online and available…, sending a first invitation to the first user to participate in the unplanned virtual interaction with another user and a second invitation to each of the one or more second users…; in response to the first user accepting the first invitations and at least one of the one or more second users accepting the second invitations, initiating a communication session for the unplanned virtual interaction for the first user and the at least one of the one or more second users, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claim recites the steps of: identifying a time period in which the first user is not currently in an online meeting…, identifying one or more second users who are online and available…, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts can be practically performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “at least one processing device”, “at least one memory configured to store user preferences”, and “collecting metrics associated the unplanned virtual interaction.”
The additional elements “at least one memory configured to store user preferences” and “collecting metrics associated the unplanned virtual interaction” are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the limitations “identifying a time period in which the first user is not currently in an online meeting…, identifying one or more second users who are online and available…; sending a first invitation to the first user to participate in the unplanned virtual interaction with another user and a second invitation to each of the one or more second users…; initiating a communication session for the unplanned virtual interaction for the first user and the at least one of the one or more second users; and collecting metrics associated the unplanned virtual interaction” are recited as being performed by the processing device. The processing device is recited at a high level of generality. In limitations “collecting metrics associated the unplanned virtual interaction”, the processing device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “identifying a time period in which the first user is not currently in an online meeting…, identifying one or more second users who are online and available…; sending a first invitation to the first user to participate in the unplanned virtual interaction with another user and a second invitation to each of the one or more second users…; initiating a communication session for the unplanned virtual interaction for the first user and the at least one of the one or more second users”, the processing device is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processing device, the memory and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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).
Moreover, the additional elements do not effect an improvement in the functioning of the processing device, the memory, or other technology, do no recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
Additional elements “at least one memory configured to store user preferences” and “collecting metrics associated the unplanned virtual interaction” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “at least one memory configured to store user preferences” and “collecting metrics associated the unplanned virtual interaction” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages 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.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processing device to perform limitations “identifying a time period in which the first user is not currently in an online meeting…, identifying one or more second users who are online and available…; sending a first invitation to the first user to participate in the unplanned virtual interaction with another user and a second invitation to each of the one or more second users…; initiating a communication session for the unplanned virtual interaction for the first user and the at least one of the one or more second users; and collecting metrics associated the unplanned virtual interaction”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 1 directed to a method, independent claim 15 directed to a medium, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent apparatus claim 8.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent- ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 9, and 16, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein identifying the time period in which the user…comprises: determining that the first user has no upcoming online meeting scheduled…; and determining the first user is online using a status of the first user, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 10, and 17, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the metrics include: (i) acceptance or rejection of the first invitation…; (ii) acceptance or rejection of the second invitation…; and (iii) duration of the unplanned virtual interaction, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4, 11, and 18, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the calendar of the first user and the status of the first user represent data from outside an application that identifies the time period…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 5, 12, and 19, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the user preference for the first user related to change social interaction include an identification that the first user selected at least one of the one or more second users from a list of people known to the first user, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 6, 13, and 20, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the one or more second users is randomly selected, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 14, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein sending the first invitation and the second invitation to each of the one or more second users overcomes social reluctance of the users to initiating remote or unplanned virtual interactions, was found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “wherein sending the invitations to the first and second users prior to initiating the communication session …” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
5. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “at least one processing device configured, based on the first user opting-in to chance social interactions and without requiring the first user to proactively initiate an unplanned virtual interaction for the first user with another user, to: identify a time period in which the first user is not currently in an online meeting, has no upcoming online meeting scheduled to begin within the user-specified amount of time, and is online; identify one or more second users who are online and available during the time period for the unplanned virtual interaction for the first user, the one or more second users remote from the first user; send a first invitation to the first user to participate in the unplanned virtual interaction with another user and a second invitation to each of the one or more second users to participate in the unplanned virtual interaction” recited in the independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
6. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
I. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
In response to the Applicant’s argument “the independent claims do not preempt any putative abstract idea”, the Examiner submits that the independent claims are analyzing in Step 2A-Prong Two and Step 2B as the following:
Step 2A-Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements of “at least one processing device”, “at least one memory configured to store user preferences”, and “collecting metrics associated the unplanned virtual interaction.”
The additional element “the processing device” which is recited at a high level of generality. In limitations “collecting metrics associated the unplanned virtual interaction”, the processing device is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “identifying a time period in which the first user is not currently in an online meeting…, identifying one or more second users who are online and available…; sending a first invitation to the first user to participate in the unplanned virtual interaction with another user and a second invitation to each of the one or more second users…; initiating a communication session for the unplanned virtual interaction for the first user and the at least one of the one or more second users”, the processing device is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Moreover, the additional elements do not effect an improvement in the functioning of the processing device, the memory, or other technology, do no recite a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, and do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of managing virtual meetings, in which “the claimed invention creates opportunities for chance encounters that would arise naturally in common areas of a workplace and provide coworkers with cues relating to an individual's willingness to interact through the individual's user preferences (such as opting in to virtual hallway collisions, whitelisting individuals or allowing random interactions, and specifying time buffers around scheduled tasks”, rather than to any technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claims as a whole do not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processing device to perform limitations “identifying a time period in which the first user is not currently in an online meeting…, identifying one or more second users who are online and available…; sending a first invitation to the first user to participate in the unplanned virtual interaction with another user and a second invitation to each of the one or more second users…; initiating a communication session for the unplanned virtual interaction for the first user and the at least one of the one or more second users; and collecting metrics associated the unplanned virtual interaction”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “at least one memory configured to store user preferences” and “collecting metrics associated the unplanned virtual interaction” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to transmitting data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages 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.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments and Amendment with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Accordingly, the 102 rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
8. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Griffin et al. (US 2015/0350258) disclose the method involves monitoring interactions between participants of a communication session to identify an additional participant for the communication session based on a topical context of the interactions.
Gupta et al. (US 2010/0223345) disclose architecture for a communication system providing a user experience that includes a conversation environment and a meeting embodiment in a single application. A navigation menu enables the user to select between multiple communications environments, including a conversations environment.
Tiperneni (US 2012/0331401) discloses the method involves enabling a virtual meeting comprising online interaction among a set of meeting participants (105) by a virtual meeting computer. An interaction reward icon is periodically generated for display on a user interface of one of the participants.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-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 Boswell can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 March 6, 2026