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 .
Status of Claim
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed on 25 of August 2025.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 have been amended.
Claim 20 has been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Argument/Remarks
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that a source/control system is a technical feature, and not simply placing an age-old process like intermediate settlement or hedging on a computer. Moreover, trying to implement such a system with a pen and paper would not be practical. Further, The applicant asserts that remote editing functions via a hyperlink, and the selective locking of remote editing, are not functions that can be performed in a human mind, thereby rendering claim 21 subject matter eligible under Section 101. The examiner respectfully disagrees. This is a misplaced argument because under Step 2A Prong I, the examiner has to determine whether the claim language is an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) and if so, under 2A Prong II determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The invention is aimed at a method and system for blocking the ability of users to edit documents during a blackout period and have dedicated users as content curators tracking revisions/versions of materials. The Federal Circuit has held that claims directed to "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moving on to Prong II of Step 2A, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. “Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017)” is an example the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computer components of applicant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. For example, claims 1, 13, and 21 do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer components themselves. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claims 1, 13, and 21 amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components performing routine computer functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
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 1-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “receiving into a computer processor a request from a meeting organizer to schedule an online meeting, the request comprising a list of meeting attendees of an international organization; transmitting an invitation to the meeting attendees, the invitation comprising a request for material to be used in connection with the online meeting; receiving from one or more of the meeting attendees the material for use in connection with the online meeting; permitting the one or more meeting attendees to modify the material for the online meeting using a source/revision control system; establishing a blackout period prior to the online meeting during which the one or more attendees cannot modify the material; during the blackout period, responsive to receipt of an instruction by the meeting organizer, using the computer processor for translating at least a portion of the material from one language to another language to generate translated material; providing the material and the translated material during the online meeting; and storing the material and the translated material in a file comprising minutes of the online meeting as a record of as-presented material; and after completion of the online meeting, permitting modification of the material with version tracking correspondingly linked to the as-presented material”. Claim 13 discloses similar limitations as Claim 1, as disclosed, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 21 recites “a storage mechanism operably connected to the conference processing system, the storage mechanism configured to receive draft presentation materials from a conference presenter sent via a hyperlink; the processor configured to enable remote editing functions of the draft presentation materials via the hyperlink sent to the conference presenter, and to selectively lock remote editing of the draft presentation materials for a preset period; whereby draft presentation materials sent to the storage mechanism by the processor during the preset period form final presentation materials; and the processor configured to retrieve and distribute the final presentation materials from the storage mechanism after the preset period.”, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 20, and 21 are directed to “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” such as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” and “Mental Process” such as “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 20, and 21 recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1, 20, and 21 recite additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element directed to receiving/sending/transmitting/storing data (italicized above) reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 20, and 21 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements described above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶19-20 " Example computing platform 200 includes at least one processor 202 (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU) or both, processor cores, compute nodes, etc.), a main memory 201 and a static memory 206, which communicate with each other via a link 208 (e.g., bus). The computing platform 200 may further include a video display unit 210,input devices 217 (e.g., a keyboard, camera, microphone), and a user interface (UI) navigation device 211 (e.g., mouse, touchscreen). The computing platform 200 may additionally include a storage device 216 (e.g., a drive unit), a signal generation device 218 (e.g., a speaker), a sensor 224, and a network interface device 220 coupled to a network 226. The storage device 216 includes a non-transitory machine-readable medium 222 on which is stored one or more sets of data structures and instructions 223 (e.g., software) embodying or utilized by any one or more of the methodologies or functions described herein. The instructions 223 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 201,static memory 206, and/or within the processor 202 during execution thereof by the computing platform 200, with the main memory 201,static memory 206, and the processor 202 also constituting machine-readable media”.
Claims 2-12 and 14-19 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 extension fee 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 10/15/2025