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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 1/22/2024 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of USPAT 11,671,272 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by John et al. (“John”) [PGPUB 2021/0337166].
Regarding claim 1, the John reference discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a video conference provider, a request to schedule a video conference, where the request comprises meeting information and information associated with an app [ie. create a room (“request to schedule a video conference”) with meeting settings and Facebook Messenger (“app”); John; figures 2, 9B, 10, and 19; paragraphs 0035, 0072, 0046, and 0153-0154];
generating, by the video conference provider, a meeting link based on the meeting information and the information associated with the app [ie. meeting link and in a Messenger (“information associated with the app”) room; John; fig 13; para 0035 and 0155-0156]; and
transmitting, by the video conference provider and to one or more client devices, the meeting link, the meeting link comprising information to join the video conference and information to suggest launching the app [ie. meeting link and in a Messenger (“information associated with the app”) room; John; fig 9B, 13, 14, and 19; para 0044, 0082, and 0157-0159].
Regarding claim 2, the John reference further discloses generating the meeting link comprises embedding a link to application content in the meeting link [ie. chat room, John; fig 13; para 0129-0130].
Regarding claim 3, the John reference further discloses the link corresponds to a previous state of the app [ie. previous state could be read as current state of the chat room; John; fig 13; para 0128-0130].
Regarding claim 4, the John reference further discloses generating the meeting link comprises embedding a meeting identifier and a meeting passcode in the meeting link [John; para 0086-0087].
Regarding claim 5, the John reference further discloses generating the meeting link comprises embedding a link to install the app [the claimed “embedding a link” does not have to be embedded into the meeting link (ie. install Messenger); John; para 0075 and 0126-0127].
Regarding claims 8-12, the apparatus of claims 8-12 perform the similar steps as the method of claims 1-5. The John reference teaches the method of claims 1-5, as referenced above. The additional limitations of a “system”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, and “processor” are rejected with the citation of paragraphs 0166 and 0170-0171 of John. Therefore, claims 8-12 are rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-5, by the teachings of John.
Regarding claims 15-18, the apparatus of claims 15-18 perform the similar steps as the method of claims 1-4. The John reference teaches the method of claims 1-4, as referenced above. The additional limitations of a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “processor” are rejected with the citation of paragraphs 0166 and 0170-0171 of John. Therefore, claims 15-18 are rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-4, by the teachings of John.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murphy et al. (“Murphy”) [USPAT 9,860,488] in view of Brett et al. (“Brett”) [PGPUB 2007/0112926].
Regarding claim 1, the Murphy reference discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a video conference provider, a request to schedule a video conference, where the request comprises meeting information and information associated with an app [ie. the application (“app”) can be the video conference application and not specifically another application (“app”); Murphy; figure 5A; column 5, lines 42-59];
generating, by the video conference provider, a meeting link based on the meeting information and the information associated with the app [ie. name of video conference application (“app”); Murphy; fig 5A; col 5, line 60 – col 6, line 9]; and
transmitting, by the video conference provider and to one or more client devices, the meeting link, the meeting link comprising information to join the video conference [Murphy; fig 5A; col 6, lines 10-45].
The meeting link would launch the video conference application (“app”), as shown in the Murphy reference but the Murphy reference does not specifically disclose “to suggest” launching the app.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Brett reference discloses a meeting invite link for information to suggest launching the app [Brett; para 0159, 0178-0182, and 0191]. The Murphy and Brett references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area of setting up virtual meetings. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of suggest an application, taught by Brett, into the system, taught by Murphy. The motivation for doing so would have been to give more options, for the meeting, to the invite creator.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Murphy-Brett further discloses generating the meeting link comprises embedding a link to application content in the meeting link [Murphy; col 6, lines 25-50] [Brett; para 0086].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Murphy-Brett further discloses the link corresponds to a previous state of the app [Murphy; col 6, lines 25-50].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Murphy-Brett further discloses generating the meeting link comprises embedding a meeting identifier and a meeting passcode in the meeting link [Murphy; col 6, lines 1-50] [Brett; para 0181-0184].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Murphy-Brett further discloses generating the meeting link comprises embedding a link to install the app [Murphy; col 6, lines 25-50][Brett; para 0050 and 0058].
Regarding claims 8-12, the apparatus of claims 8-12 perform the similar steps as the method of claims 1-5. The combination of Murphy-Brett teaches the method of claims 1-5, as referenced above. The additional limitations of a “system”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, and “processor” are rejected with the citation of column 7, lines 27-67 of Murphy. Therefore, claims 8-12 are rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-5, by the teachings of Murphy-Brett.
Regarding claims 15-18, the apparatus of claims 15-18 perform the similar steps as the method of claims 1-4. The combination of Murphy-Brett teaches the method of claims 1-5, as referenced above. The additional limitations of a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “processor” are rejected with the citation of column 7, lines 27-67 of Murphy. Therefore, claims 15-18 are rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-4, by the teachings of Murphy-Brett.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Clark et al. [USPAT 10,275,798] describes meeting invite with deep links.
Krantz et al. [PGPUB 2010/0246448] describes automatically joining resources (applications) to a real-time conference.
Tolba et al. [PGPUB 2023/0198749] describes organizing a meeting with AI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D CARDONE whose telephone number is (571)272-3933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-4pmEST.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D CARDONE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights