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 .
1. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, and 16 are amended as filed on 12/02/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seferian et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2012/0293605 A1), hereinafter Seferian, in view of Shin (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2025/0023930 A1), and in further view of Karstens (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2005/0050061 A1).
2. With respect to claims 1, 11, and 16, Seferian taught a computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a set of communications associated with an upcoming meeting (0013, where the scheduling can be seen in 0278); analyzing the set of communications to identify one or more assets to be loaded for the upcoming meeting (0013); and loading the one or more assets on a computing device that will be presenting the one or more assets during the upcoming meeting (0294, where the data is uploaded to the local computer).
However, Seferian did not explicitly state that the meeting was a virtual meeting, and that the analyzing wav via a natural language processing; monitoring and collecting communications between two or more users prior to the virtual meeting and during the virtual meeting; generating a confidence score related to the analysis of the set of communications associated with assets requested for the virtual meeting; and adjusting the confidence score based on the collected communications between the two or more users during the virtual meeting. On the other hand, Shin did teach that the meeting was a virtual meeting (0004), and that the analyzing wav via a natural language processing (0045 & 0075, where capturing and understanding the user speech inputs implicitly teaches the NLP); monitoring and collecting communications between two or more users prior to the virtual meeting and during the virtual meeting (0038); generating a confidence score related to the analysis of the set of communications associated with assets requested for the virtual meeting (0051); and adjusting the confidence score based on the collected communications between the two or more users during the virtual meeting (0021 & 0054, where looking at the referenced conversation that took place prior to the current virtual meeting teaches the before communication limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation. Likewise, the confidence threshold teaches the confidence score). Both of the systems of Seferian and Shin are directed towards managing meetings/conferences and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Seferian, to utilize an NLP for a virtual meeting as well as using learning tool to provide desired assets, as taught by Shin, in order to more seamlessly manage a conference and thus increasing the “user-friendliness” of the system.
However, Seferian did not explicitly state responsive to receiving a notification that an upcoming virtual meeting is scheduled, initiating a collection of a set of communications, wherein the notification comprises characteristics associated with the upcoming virtual meeting, and wherein the characteristics comprise meeting start times, participant lists, meeting agenda with various presentation time slots per participant, and an application software type associated with a host of the virtual meeting. On the other hand, Karstens did teach responsive to receiving a notification that an upcoming virtual meeting is scheduled, initiating a collection of a set of communications, wherein the notification comprises characteristics associated with the upcoming virtual meeting (0029), and wherein the characteristics comprise meeting start times (0029), participant lists (), meeting agenda with various presentation time slots per participant (0029, the participants), and an application software type associated with a host of the virtual meeting (0010, the preset resources). Both of the systems of Seferian and Karstens are directed towards managing meetings/conferences and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Seferian, to utilize collecting specific meeting data, as taught by Karstens, in order to more seamlessly schedule a conference and thus increasing the “user-friendliness” of the system.
3. As for claims 2, 12, and 17, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 11, and 16 (respectively). In addition, Seferian taught wherein the one or more assets are loaded automatically on the computing device when the upcoming virtual meeting initiates (0002, the initiating).
4. As for claims 3, 13, and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 11, and 16 (respectively). In addition, Seferian taught wherein the one or more assets are loaded automatically on the computing device at a predetermined time period prior to initiation of the virtual meeting (0010, where the scheduling allows a selected predetermined time).
5. As for claims 4, 14, and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 11, and 16 (respectively). In addition, Seferian taught determining that a first asset of the one or more assets is needed at a first predetermined time period after the virtual meeting initiates; and loading the first asset at the first predetermined time period after the virtual meeting initiates (0317, where performing actions, on schedule, implicitly teaches that resources can be scheduled as a user desires).
6. As for claims 5, 15, and 20, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 11, and 16 (respectively). In addition, Seferian taught wherein at least one asset of the one or more assets loaded on the computing devices is automatically displayed on the computing device that is designated for screen sharing during the virtual meeting (0297, where the shared documentation and images teach the displayed resource).
7. As for claim 6, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Seferian taught wherein the set of communications associated with the upcoming virtual meeting are identified prior to the receiving, wherein the identifying comprises: receiving an identification of the upcoming virtual meeting; receiving a set of characteristics of the upcoming virtual meeting; and analyzing a corpus of text to identify the set of communications associated with the identification of the upcoming virtual meeting and the set of characteristics of the upcoming virtual meeting (0357, where the user selection was analyzed and a text is submitted. See also, the filled in text fields of 0360-0361).
8. As for claim 7, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Seferian taught wherein the set of communications comprises one or more communications type chosen from a group consisting of: email correspondence; text messages; direct messages; and calendar messages (0357, where the user selection was analyzed and a text is submitted).
9. As for claim 8, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 7. In addition, Seferian taught wherein the one or more assets comprises one or more asset types chosen from a group consisting of: software applications, computer models, documents, and files (0297, where this, at least, teaches the shared documentation and files limitation).
10. As for claim 9, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Seferian taught analyzing, using NLP, a second set of communications generated during the virtual meeting to identify a second asset to be loaded on the computing device or a second computing device attending the virtual meeting; and loading the second asset on either the computing device or the second computing device (0013, where the scheduling is repeatable and the NLP was previously shown by Shin: 0045).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seferian, in view of Shin, in view of Karstens, and in further view of Chubanov (Patent No. US 12,166,631 B2), hereinafter Chubanov.
11. As for claim 10, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. However, Seferian did not explicitly state analyzing, prior to loading the one or more assets, a performance state of the computing device; generating, based on the analyzing, a performance state score for the computing device; and comparing the performance state score to a predetermined threshold, wherein if the predetermined threshold is met, the one or more assets are loaded on the computing device. On the other hand, Chubanov did teach analyzing, prior to loading the one or more assets, a performance state of the computing device; generating, based on the analyzing, a performance state score for the computing device; and comparing the performance state score to a predetermined threshold, wherein if the predetermined threshold is met, the one or more assets are loaded on the computing device (25:14-43, where the scheduled devices are the loaded assets under broadest reasonable interpretation). Both of the systems of Seferian and Chubanov are directed towards configuring a network (where Serferian’s scheduling of the devices configures the network for a meeting) and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Seferian, to utilize comparing device performance prior-to scheduling said device, as taught by Chubanov, in order to better optimize the selected system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443