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. The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Action of 10/01/2025, Applicant, on 12/29/2025, amended Claims 1, 3, 6, 15 and 18; and cancelled Claims 2, 16 and 19. Claims 4, 5, 7-14, 17, 18 and 20 are as originally or previously presented.
Claims 1, 3-15, 17, 18 and 20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
3. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
4. Claim Objections added in light of Applicant's amendments.
5. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant's amendments and arguments.
6. The prior 35 USC §103 rejection of Claims maintained despite Applicant's amendments and arguments.
Claim Objections
7. Claims 1, 15 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites "monitoring, by the processor, during the communication session, one or more meeting parameters during the communication session" at lines 6-7, instead of "monitoring, by the processor, ".
Claims 15 and 18 are similarly affected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 3-15, 17, 18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of method (process), system (machine) or medium (manufacture), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
10. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 recites A method for managing communication sessions, comprising: .. a communication session with a plurality of participants ..; determining .. a type of the communication session; monitoring .. one or more meeting parameters during the communication session; providing .. the monitored one or more meeting parameters as sequence time-series data to .. predict productivity; receiving .. an output .. indicative of predicted productivity; generating .. during the communication session .. a .. productivity score based on the output; and in response to the .. productivity score exceeding or failing to meet a threshold value, .. dynamically adjust a duration of the communication session, wherein the monitored one or more meeting parameters are selected from .. topic meeting parameters, which is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – 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), because monitoring a meeting to determine a productivity score is a business process for mitigating economic risk, and involves commercial or legal interactions and managing interactions between people; furthermore, it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because adjusting a duration of a meeting based on a score exceeding or failing to meet a threshold value is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion. Claims 15 and 18 recite a similar abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for independent Claims 1, 15 and 18, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the independent Claims, including additional elements such as executing, by a conferencing server, over a communication network, exchanging real-time audio and video data over a communication network, by a processor, a trained machine learning network, from the trained machine learning network, real-time, automatically transmitting, by the processor, a control signal to the conferencing server, the group consisting of shared application usage, latency, one or more processors, a memory coupled with and readable by the one or more processors, A computer-readable storage medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein, executed by one or more processors, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B of the analysis, independent Claims 1, 15 and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1 and 2A of the Drawings and paragraphs 44, 45, 49-52, 88, 91, 96 and 100-102 of the Specification in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 3-14, 17 and 20 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in independent Claims from which they depend, and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 17 and 20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 4, 7, 11 and 12 do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application because these Claims, including additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and a user device, sensor, a graphical user interface, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 3, 5, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 17 and 20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not recite anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 4, 7, 11 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and a user device, sensor, a graphical user interface, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1 and 2A of the Drawings and paragraphs 44, 45, 49-52, 88, 91, 96 and 100-102 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, Claims 1, 3-15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
35 U.S.C. 103 forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
12. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al. (US Patent Publication 20210185276 A1 - hereinafter Peters) in view of Shepherd et al. (US Patent Publication 20150154291 A1 - hereinafter Shepherd).
13. As per Claim 1, Peters teaches:
A method for managing communication sessions [PETERS reads on: Abstract (network-based communication session, server system); para 2 (managing video conferences and other communication sessions)], comprising:
executing, by a conferencing server, a communication session with a plurality of participants exchanging real-time audio and video data over a communication network [PETERS reads on: Fig. 16 (Network 1506); para 3 (video conferences and other communication sessions, The system can process media streams, real-time analysis, audio, video, characterize the state of the communication session and its participants); para 9 (allowing the servers to then aggregate and distribute the analysis results with the video conference)];
determining, by a processor, during the communication session, a type of the communication session [PETERS reads on(process 2100 for analyzing communication sessions, obtaining data for communication sessions 2102, determine relationships between communication factors 2108); Fig. 21 (PROVIDE OUTPUT INDICATING DETERMINED COMMUNICATION SESSION FACTORS 2156); para 3, as above; para 14 (system can capture and share information about the state of participants in a communication session even when video data is not transferred to the server); para 19; para 133 (system can also evaluate audio)];
monitoring, by the processor, one or more meeting parameters during the communication session [PETERS reads on: Fig. 2B (Speaking Frequency & Duration Determination 110a, Feature Scores 120); Fig. 16 (system for communication session); para 15 (the server can monitor performance during the communication session); para 133 (the system can use image recognition and gesture recognition to identify different facial expressions); para 152 (image recognition, audio analysis, pattern recognition), para 153; ; paras 323-326];
providing, by the processor, the monitored one or more meeting parameters as sequence time-series data [PETERS reads on: Gig. 22D (ENDPOINT ANALYSIS RESULTS, Results of time-series analysis & filtering); para 23 (applying a time-series transformation to a sequence of scores, transmitted by the endpoint device)] to a trained machine learning network configured to predict productivity [PETERS reads on: Fig. 19A (system 2000 for analyzing meetings and other communication sessions, Train Machine Learning Models 2022); Fig. 19E (machine learning and training); para 20 (using a trained machine learning model); Fig. 20 (TRAIN PREDICTIVE MODELS 2108C); para 49 (training a machine learning model based on the participant data); para 58 (providing, to a trained machine learning classifier); para 154 (determine characteristics of the media stream); para 170 (actively and intelligently learn how to best and most effectively score each participant)];
receiving, by the processor, an output from the trained machine learning network indicative of predicted productivity [PETERS reads on: Fig. 8 (Moderator Logic, Machine learning to better score the participant with experience; Moderator Actions, Tactfully interjects audio and video message to improve collaboration); Fig. 21 (DETERMINE COMMUNICATION SESSION FACTOR(S) PREDICTED TO PROMOTE THE TARGET OUTCOME 2154, PROVIDE OUTPUT INDICATING DETERMINED COMMUNICATION SESSION FACTORS 2156); para 69 (determining and outputting, in real-time during the video conference session, a representation of instructions to improve one or more of the composite scores)];
generating, by the processor, during the communication session, a real-time productivity score based on the output [PETERS reads on: Fig. 2B (Collaboration Factor Scores 140); Fig. 18 (DURING A COMMUNICATION SESSION, OBTAIN A PARTICIPANT SCORE FOR EACH PARTICIPANT .. INDICATE .. LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT OF THE CORRESPONDING PARTICIPANT 1702); Fig. 19A (Real-time Feedback 2031, Recommendations for improved engagement and performance 2033); para 3 (recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the communication session); para 69, as above; paras 154-155]; and …
… automatically transmitting, by the processor, a control signal to the conferencing server to dynamically adjust a duration of the communication session [PETERS reads on: para 214 (if a decrease in the aggregate or overall engagement is detected, the system can determine that it is time to take a break); para 223 (The system can also adjust the total meeting time is automatically transmitting, by the processor, a control signal to the conferencing server to dynamically adjust a duration of the communication session); para 502 (event or signal for the server 1510 to inform a user that they have been talking too long, notice can be suppressed if state of communication session is favorable)],
wherein the monitored one or more meeting parameters are selected from the group
consisting of shared application usage, latency, and topic meeting parameters [PETERS reads on: para 15 (monitor performance during the communication session); para 200 (analyze one or more recording(s) of the session in an “offline” or delayed manner is latency); para 294 (server-side implementation of the application is shared application usage); para 391 (educational subjects is topic meeting parameters); paras 434-437].
Peters does not explicitly teach, but Shepherd teaches:
… in response to the real-time productivity score exceeding or failing to meet a threshold value [SHEPHERD reads on: para 7 (engagement metrics to calculate the score, engagement metric has reached a corresponding threshold value); para 13 (exceeding time planned for the virtual collaboration session); para 31 (increase effectiveness of real-time team interactions); para 38 (a real-time communications server)], …
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Peters to incorporate the teachings of Shepherd in the same field of endeavor of meeting management to include in response to the real-time productivity score exceeding or failing to meet a threshold value. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the meeting management of Peters by efficiently conducting meetings. See Shepherd, Abstract, “Systems and methods for managing behavior in a virtual collaboration session”.
14. Claim 2 canceled.
15. As per Claim 3, Peters in view of Shepherd teaches:
The method of claim 1 [as above, Claim 1], further comprising
Peters further teaches:
generating, by the processor, a productivity score for each of the monitored one or more meeting parameters [PETERS reads on: Fig. 2B (Feature Scores 120); para 147 (determine scores for different collaboration factors)],
wherein the productivity score is further based on the trained machine learning network learning from user feedback and tuning the productivity score based on the user feedback [PETERS reads on: Fig. 19A (Train Machine Learning Models 2022); para 416 (the system can train the models iteratively); para 417 (results of the analysis are captured in scores 2021)].
16. As per Claim 5, Peters in view of Shepherd teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the output [as above, Claim 1] is further
Peters further teaches:
determined based on a comparison between the monitored one or more meeting parameters and meeting parameters from previous communication sessions [PETERS reads on: para 154 (module 110c performs pattern analysis to compare patterns of user speech and movement with prior patterns); para 338 (historical data can show previous patterns for the presenter); para 357 (machine learning model trained based on prior sessions)].
17. As per Claim 6, Peters in view of Shepherd teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the trained machine learning network [as above, Claim 1] is
Peters further teaches:
trained using productivity outcomes from prior communication sessions [PETERS reads on: Fig. 16, Fig. 19A (historical data 1512); Fig. 19E (historical data 1512 as input into machine learning model 2060); para 278 (machine learning model may include a memory or accumulation feature to take into account the progression or changes over time); para 338 (historical data can show previous patterns for the presenter); para 357 (machine learning model trained based on prior sessions)].
18. As per Claim 11, Peters in view of Shepherd teaches:
The method of claim 1 [as above, Claim 1], further comprising
Peters does not explicitly teach, but Shepherd further teaches:
outputting, by the processor, the real-time productivity score to a user device of one or more of the plurality of participants [SHEPHERD reads on: Fig. 3 (system 300); Fig. 6 (614, 615); Fig. 7 (screenshot 700, overall metrics 702); para 31 (real-time team interactions); paras 103, 104; para 96 (screenshots presented to a user)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Peters in view of Shepherd to incorporate the further teachings of Shepherd in the same field of endeavor of meeting management to include outputting, by the processor, the real-time productivity score to a user device of one or more of the plurality of participants. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the meeting management of Peters in view of Shepherd by efficiently conducting meetings.
19. As per Claim 12, Peters in view of Shepherd teaches:
The method of claim 11, further comprising outputting, by the processor [as above, Claim 11],
Peters does not explicitly teach, but Shepherd further teaches:
a recommendation regarding the communication session along with the real-time productivity score to the user device of one or more of the plurality of participants [SHEPHERD reads on: Fig. 6 (614, 615); Fig. 7 (screenshot 700, Participants 701, overall metrics 702, suggestion 703); para 31, as above, Claim 11; para 104].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Peters in view of Shepherd to incorporate the further teachings of Shepherd in the same field of endeavor of meeting management to include a recommendation regarding the communication session along with the real-time productivity score to the user device of one or more of the plurality of participants. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the meeting management of Peters in view of Shepherd by efficiently conducting meetings.
20. As per Claim 15, Peters teaches:
A system for managing communication sessions, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled with and readable by the one or more processors having stored therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors [PETERS reads on: Abstract, Fig. 19A, as above, Claim 1; para 185 (instructions that are executable by the processor 16 and that are provided on the computer-readable storage media)] to
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1 above.
21. Claim 16 canceled.
22. As per Claim 17, Peters in view of Shepherd teaches:
The system of claim 15, wherein the output [as above, Claim 15] is further
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 5 above.
23. As per Claim 18, Peters teaches:
A computer-readable storage medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors [PETERS reads on: Abstract, Fig. 19A, as above, Claim 1; para 185 as above, Claim 15] to
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1 above.
24. Claim 19 canceled.
25. As per Claim 20, Peters in view of Shepherd teaches:
The computer-readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein the output [as above, Claim 18] is further
The remainder of the claim rejected under the same rationale as Claim 5 above.
26. Claims 4, 7-10, 13 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters in view of Shepherd in further view of Yaari et al. (US Patent Publication 20180046957 A1 - hereinafter Yaari).
27. As per Claim 4, Peters in view of Shepherd teaches:
The method of claim 3 [as above, Claim 3], further comprising
Peters further teaches:
outputting, by the processor, a notification to a user device of one or more of the plurality of participants based on a participant meeting parameter productivity score, wherein the participant meeting parameter productivity score is based on [PETERS reads on: para 368 (The representation can indicate a distribution of the participant scores); para 369 (the system can cause the presenter to be notified of the aggregate representation)] …
… at least facial expression recognition, voice modulation detection, or keystroke activity [PETERS reads on: Fig. 22D (ENDPOINT ANALYSIS RESULTS, Detected states, gestures, expressions, etc., SERVER PROCESSING, Voice stress analysis); para 168 (facial expression)].
Peters in view of Shepherd does not explicitly teach, but Yaari teaches:
… sensor data of the plurality of participants during the communication session, and wherein the sensor data [YAARI reads on: Fig. 4 (404, 406); para 38 (user data may include data that is sensed or determined from one or more sensors); para 58 (specific features and values associated with the features (such as effectiveness scores ..)); para 105 (sensed data, effectiveness score)] comprising …
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Peters in view of Shepherd to incorporate the teachings of Yaari in the same field of endeavor of meeting management to include sensor data of the plurality of participants during the communication session. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the meeting management of Peters in view of Shepherd by efficiently conducting meetings. See Yaari, Abstract, "Technologies are provided for determining effectiveness of online meetings and providing actionable recommendations and insights based, in part, on a determined effectiveness of the online meetings".
28. As per Claim 7, Peters in view of Shepherd in view of Yaari teaches:
The method of claim 4 [as above, Claim 4], further comprising
Peters further teaches:
outputting, by the processor, to the user device of the one or more of the plurality of participants, a graphical user interface representation for the communication session with video representations for the plurality of participants based on the participant meeting parameter productivity score [PETERS reads on: Figs. 9A-9D; para 304 (user interfaces for video conferencing); para 305 (dashboard gauges show summary metrics in aggregate for all participants)].
29. As per Claim 8, Peters in view of Shepherd in view of Yaari teaches:
The method of claim 7 [as above, Claim 7], further comprising
Peters does not explicitly teach, but Shepherd further teaches:
automatically adjusting, by the processor, a size of one or more of the video representations for the plurality of participants based on an adjusted participant parameter productivity score [SHEPHERD reads on: Fig. 1 (collaboration session environment, whiteboard 103); Figs. 4, 5 (screenshots 400, 500 are video representations); para 38 ; para 39 (projection of images onto a screen); para 45 (user interface that is portable across platforms and device types is automatically adjusting a size of one or more of the video representations); para 70 (dynamic whiteboarding drawing area, virtual border around user's cursor); para 90 (engagement metrics is productivity score); paras 92-95 (shaded portions of Figs. 4, 5 represent engagement metrics, adjusted in width for each individual; each individual may have selected a different set of metrics, a participant may change a metric or a metric's weight is based on an adjusted participant parameter productivity score)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Peters in view of Shepherd in view of Yaari to incorporate the further teachings of Shepherd in the same field of endeavor of meeting management to include automatically adjusting, by the processor, a size of one or more of the video representations for the plurality of participants based on an adjusted participant parameter productivity score. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the meeting management of Peters in view of Shepherd in view of Yaari by efficiently conducting meetings.
30. As per Claim 9, Peters in view of Shepherd in view of Yaari teaches:
The method of claim 7 [as above, Claim 7], further comprising
Peters does not explicitly teach, but Shepherd further teaches:
highlighting, by the processor, one or more of the video representations for the plurality of participants based on an adjusted participant parameter productivity score [SHEPHERD reads on: Figs. 4, 5 (changes in overall engagement scores 405, 505 from last meeting to current meeting are displayed prominently - highlighting adjusted participant parameter productivity score); paras 45, 70 as above, Claim 8].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Peters in view of Shepherd in view of Yaari to incorporate the further teachings of Shepherd in the same field of endeavor of meeting management to include highlighting, by the processor, one or more of the video representations for the plurality of participants based on an adjusted participant parameter productivity score. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the meeting management of Peters in view of Shepherd in view of Yaari by efficiently conducting meetings.
31. As per Claim 10, Peters in view of Shepherd in view of Yaari teaches:
The method of claim 7 [as above, Claim 7], further comprising
Peters further teaches:
including, by the processor, a visual representation of the participant parameter productivity scores for each of the plurality of participants along with the video representations for the plurality of participants [PETERS reads on: Fig. 4 (processor); Fig. 9D (user interface with participant images, indicators); para 298 (collaboration score); paras 304, 310 (indicators)].
32. As per Claim 13, Peters in view of Shepherd teaches:
The method of claim 1 [as above, Claim 1], further comprising
Peters in view of Shepherd does not explicitly teach, but Yaari teaches:
dynamically scheduling, by the processor, a subsequent communication session based on the real-time productivity score failing to meet the threshold value [YAARI reads on: para 6 (recommendations/insights communicated in real-time); para 83 (determining optimal meeting features for the proposed meeting); para 84 (maximizing attendance of meeting attendees with the highest importance scores); para 85 (automatically determine optimal meeting features); para 86 (meeting scheduled for Tuesday but important participants cannot attend is based on the final productivity score failing to meet the threshold value; then meeting features recommender 256 may recommend Wednesday is dynamically scheduling a subsequent communication session)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Peters in view of Shepherd to incorporate the teachings of Yaari in the same field of endeavor of meeting management to include dynamically scheduling, by the processor, a subsequent communication session based on the real-time productivity score failing to meet the threshold value. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the meeting management of Peters in view of Shepherd by efficiently conducting meetings.
33. As per Claim 14, Peters in view of Shepherd teaches:
The method of claim 1 [as above, Claim 1], further comprising
Peters in view of Shepherd does not explicitly teach, but Yaari teaches:
dynamically adding or deleting, by the processor, participants to a future communication session, based on the real-time productivity score exceeding or failing to meet a threshold value [YAARI reads on: para 6 (recommendations/insights communicated in real-time); para 83 (determining optimal meeting features for the proposed meeting); para 84 (maximizing attendance of meeting attendees with the highest importance scores); para 85 (automatically determine optimal meeting features); para 86 (meeting scheduled for Tuesday but important participants cannot attend is based on the real-time productivity score failing to meet the threshold value); then meeting features recommender 256 may recommend Wednesday, to include attendees with highest importance scores, is dynamically adding participants to a future communication session].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Peters in view of Shepherd to incorporate the teachings of Yaari in the same field of endeavor of meeting management to include dynamically adding or deleting, by the processor, participants to a future communication session, based on the real-time productivity score exceeding or failing to meet a threshold value. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the meeting management of Peters in view of Shepherd by efficiently conducting meetings.
Response to Arguments
34. Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are found not persuasive.
35. Examiner notes that the amended claim language does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection as explained in detail at paragraph 8 above in this Office Action.
36. Applicant argues (at pp. 8-9) that Peters, Shepherd and Yaari do not teach the amended claim language.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Each limitation of the amended language is clearly taught by the combination of Peters and Shepherd, as explained in detail at paragraph 13 above in this Office Action.
Conclusion
37. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
38. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights