DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 3-12, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception(s) without significantly more.
[STEP 1] The claim recites at least one step or structure. Thus, the claim is to a process or product, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
[STEP2A PRONG I] The claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 recite(s):
receiving, at an alert context identification system, an alert initiated by one of a plurality of user devices in operative communication with a central device operated by a presenting user, wherein the alert comprises a question a user of the one of the plurality of user devices has for the presenting user, wherein the question is directed to one or more topics discussed during the presentation;
determining, utilizing the alert context identification system and during the presentation, a context occurring at a time of the alert, wherein the determining the context comprises identifying location within the presentation associated with the one or more topics, wherein the location of the one or more topics falls within a window of time surrounding the alert;
providing, to the central device and utilizing the alert context identification system, the context with the alert while the presentation is ongoing, wherein the providing the context with the alert to central device comprises providing the context with the lasert to the device of the presenting user;
supplying, utilizing the alert context identification system and referencing the context occurring at the time of the alert, a response to the alert initiated by the one of the plurality of user devices from the central device operated by the presenting user while the presentation is ongoing.
The non-highlighted aforementioned limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation between people but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “user device”, “central device”, “processor”, “memory device” and “computer readable storage device”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed between people. For example, but for the recited language, the step in the context of this claim encompasses a teacher receiving message/communication from a student and communicating with said student accordingly.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “Organization of Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claim recites a judicial exception, and the analysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
[STEP2A PRONG II] This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional element(s) – “user device”, “central device”, “processor”, “memory device” and “computer readable storage device”
The “user device”, “central device”, “processor”, “memory device” and “computer readable storage device” in the aforementioned steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
[STEP2B] The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the aforementioned steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot provide an inventive concept (for example, see paragraph 24 and 33).
As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concept in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Claim(s) 2, 4-10, 12, 14-22 are dependent on supra claim(s) and includes all the limitations of the claim(s). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) recite(s) the same abstract idea. The claim recites no additional limitations. Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argued that the current claim limitation is directed toward the presentation of alert to the device of the presenting user and supply a response to the alert imitated by the one of the plurality of user device operated by the presenting user while a presentation is ongoing. As such, Applicant argued that the claim limitation are no longer directed toward managing interactions between people. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the use of computer to perform or operate the abstract ideas by itself is not sufficient to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C 101. For example, MPEP 2106 provides an example on that case that uses a computer as tool to perform the mental process Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 is not sufficient to overcome the rejection because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. In this particular case, the limitation of claim 1, 11 and 20 only provide a limitation of the results of the abstract ideas steps and do not require any non-generic computer component that would amount to significantly more than the exception. A review of the specification “alert context identification system” on paragraph 54-55 shows that a description of series of mental steps that can be interpreted as an abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner takes the position that these amendment are not sufficient to overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
The Applicant argued that the current claim limitation provides additional limitation that is not well understood-routine, conventional activity in the field. The Applicant argued that the conventional techniques require a disruption to an ongoing presentation to address an alert (e.g., a user raising their hand), causing the presentation to halt, a presenter being center based on a question of a user that altered the teacher, responding to the question, a presenter recentering themselves and then continuing the presentation. Thus, the process negatively influences a flow and operation of a presentation, and can greatly increase a length of time of a presentation when one or more alerts are recognized and responded to by a presenting user. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that the type improvement suggested by Applicant do not appears to align the type of improvement suggested in the MPEP. The type of improvement suggested by Applicant appears to improve the performance of the presenting user while the type of improvement suggested by the MPEP appears to be specifically targeted to the improvement of a computing or technical environment. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not sufficient to overcome the current rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J UTAMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1676. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 17:30 Monday - Friday.
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, Kang Hu can be reached at (571)270-1344. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT J UTAMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715