DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 01/23/2026.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/30/2023 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 7 and 14) are directed, in part, to a system, a computer readable media and a method for generating meetings.
Step 1 – Claims 1-6 (system), 7-13 (non transitory computer readable media), and 14-20 (method) fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claims 1-6 are directed to a system (i.e. machine), claims 7-13 are directed to a media (i.e. article of manufacture), and claims 14-20 are directed to a method (i.e. process). However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes managing personal behavior or interactions between people.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to receiving, from a user profile of a user associated with a communication platform, first data representing a request to generate an event with a group of users, wherein the request indicates one or more event criteria; determining, based at least in part on user profile data associated with the group of users and the one or more event criteria, second data representative of a recommendation including a confidence level indicative of whether the event will satisfy a threshold number of the one or more event criteria; determining, based at least in part on the confidence level being below the threshold number, a suggestion, the suggestion including a modification to the one or more event criteria to increase the confidence level to meet or exceed the threshold number, wherein the suggestion is determined based at least in part on historical data and similar meeting data that is associated with one or more meetings that are similar to the event to generate; causing the suggestion to be included in the recommendation; receiving, from the user profile and based at least in part on determining that the confidence level meets or exceeds the threshold number and the recommendation , user input data representing an intent to generate the event; and generating, based at least in part on the user input data, the event with the group of users. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing behavior or interactions between people, then it falls under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, independent claim 1 recites additional elements system, processor, non-transitory computer-readable media, communication platform, user interface; independent claim 7 recites additional elements non transitory computer readable media, processors, communication platform, independent claim 14 recites additional elements communication platform. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 4 and related text and [0039-0042] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “In at least one example, the server(s) 102 can include one or more processors 108, computer-readable media 110, one or more communication interfaces 112, and/or input/output devices 114. In at least one example, each processor of the processor(s) 108 can be a single processing unit or multiple processing units, and can include single or multiple computing units or multiple processing cores. The processor(s) 108 can be implemented as one or more microprocessors, microcomputers, microcontrollers, digital signal processors, central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs), state machines, logic circuitries, and/or any devices that manipulate signals based on operational instructions. For example, the processor(s) 108 can be one or more hardware processors and/or logic circuits of any suitable type specifically programmed or configured to execute the algorithms and processes described herein. The processor(s) 108 can be configured to fetch and execute computer-readable instructions stored in the computer-readable media, which can program the processor(s) to perform the functions described herein. The computer-readable media 110 can include volatile and nonvolatile memory and/or removable and non-removable media implemented in any type of technology for storage of data, such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. Such computer-readable media 110 can include, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, optical storage, solid state storage, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage, RAID storage systems, storage arrays, network attached storage, storage area networks, cloud storage, or any other medium that can be used to store the desired data and that can be accessed by a computing device. Depending on the configuration of the server(s) 102, the computer-readable media 110 can be a type of computer-readable storage media and/or can be a tangible non-transitory media to the extent that when mentioned, non-transitory computer-readable media exclude media such as energy, carrier signals, electromagnetic waves, and signals per se. The computer-readable media 110 can be used to store any number of functional components that are executable by the processor(s) 108. In many implementations, these functional components comprise instructions or programs that are executable by the processor(s) 108 and that, when executed, specifically configure the processor(s) 108 to perform the actions attributed above to the server(s) 102. Functional components stored in the computer-readable media can optionally include a messaging component 116, an audio/video component 118, an event component 120, an operating system 122, and a datastore 124.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2021/0105147 (hereinafter; Waugh) in view of US Pub. No. 2023/0013497 (hereinafter; Aher).
Regarding claims 1/7/14, Waugh discloses:
A system; A non-transitory computer readable media; A method comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving, from a user profile of a user associated with a communication platform, (Waugh [0059], Table 3 disclose user contact data including a Linked-In profile.) first data representing a request to generate a meeting with a group of users, wherein the request comprises a list of one or more meeting criteria to be achieved in association with the meeting; (Waugh [0016] discloses an interactive meeting request form that is generated for a meeting organizer, the method further including extracting subject data, location data and meeting start and end time data from the meeting request form and generating a future meeting profile for the future meeting based on the extracted email addresses, extracted subject data and extracted location data.) identifying, in response to receiving the request, user profile data associated with the group of users and calendar data associated with the group of users; (Waugh Table 6 discloses activity data and records including user data, meeting requests, calendar invites.)
determining, based at least in part on the confidence level being below the threshold number, (Waugh [0096] discloses contacts that do not meet predefined relationship score criteria may be excluded from addition to list 400 (e.g., have a Contact-Enterprise Relationship Score below a first threshold and/or a User-Contact Relationship Score with the meeting organizer that is below a second threshold.)
wherein the suggestion is determined based at least in part on historical data and similar meeting data that is associated with one or more meetings that are similar to the meeting to generate; (Waugh [0037] discloses An automated invitee recommendation module… is configured to review the meeting information, the contact information available, patterns from similar opportunity meetings from past opportunities and recommend that the meeting organizer invites the department manager for the contact at company A, and/or another contact at company A that the meeting organizer has a strong relationship with from a past successful opportunity.)
causing the suggestion to be included in the recommendation; (Waugh [0109] discloses a display panel with recommendations, invitees information and other information that can be displayed including relationship strength scores.)
causing the recommendation to be displayed via a user interface associated with the user profile of the user; (Waugh [0109] discloses a display panel with recommendations, invitees information and other information that can be displayed including relationship strength scores.)
receiving, in response to displaying the recommendation and from the user profile, user input data representing an intent to generate the meeting; (Waugh [0085-0086] disclose A meeting invitee recommendation process is triggered. In example embodiments, the process may be triggered when the meeting organizer (for example an enterprise user 182) starts organizing a meeting and adding invitations in an email system. By way of example, an enterprise user 182 may interact with a user interface provided by PIM module 106 of the user's UE device 104 to schedule an future meeting with multiple meeting participants that will typically include the meeting organizer and one or more additional invitees.)
and generating, based on the user input data, the meeting with the group of users. (Waugh [0016] discloses generating an interactive meeting request form that is generated for a meeting organizer and generating a future meeting profile for the future meeting.)
Although Waugh discloses systems and methods for scheduling meetings, Waugh does not specifically disclose updating meeting criteria. However, Aher discloses the following limitations:
determining, based on the calendar data, the user profile data, and the list of one or more meeting criteria, second data representative of a recommendation including a confidence level indicative of whether the meeting will satisfy a threshold number of the one or more meeting criteria; (Aher [0049] discloses meeting module 514 also updates its preference values, to more accurately track and respond to participant preferences that may change over time.)
a suggestion, the suggestion including a modification to the one or more meeting criteria to increase the confidence level to meet or exceed the threshold number, (Aher [0049] discloses meeting module 514 also updates its preference values, to more accurately track and respond to participant preferences that may change over time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for predicting meetings of Waugh with the meeting platform of Aher in order to improve participant interest in meetings (Aher abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 2/8/15, Waugh discloses:
The system of claim 1; The one or more non transitory computer readable media of claim 7; The method of claim 14, wherein the list of one or more meeting criteria comprises at least one of: one or more first types of roles that are to be included in the meeting, one or more second types of roles that are optional for the meeting, one or more first numbers of user profiles to satisfy each of the one or more first types of roles, one or more second numbers of user profiles to satisfy each of the one or more second types of roles, one or more user profiles associated with a second user of the group of users, a meeting/event start time, a meeting/event duration, a meeting title, one or more attachments associated with the meeting, or a meeting/event description. (Waugh [0009] discloses the stored relationship data includes role information that indicates, for at least some of the plurality individuals, a role of the individual within an organization that the individual is associated with, and the method includes selecting one or more of the additional individuals for addition to the potential invitee list based on the indicated role of the individual. Table 6 discloses meeting duration.)
Regarding claims 3/9/16, Waugh discloses:
The system of claim 2; The one or more non transitory computer readable media of claim 8; The method of claim 15, wherein the one or more first types of roles comprise at least one of: one or more employment positions, one or more professions, one or more organizational teams, one or more resources, or one or more assets. (Waugh [0102] discloses In example embodiments, an individual's role is a combination of that individual's title and department.)
Regarding claims 4/10/17, Waugh discloses:
The system of claim 1; The one or more non transitory computer readable media of claim 7; The method of claim 14, the operations further comprising: receiving, from a second user profile of a second user of the group of users, third data representing a second request to associate the meeting/event with the second user profile; identifying, in response to the third data, second user profile data associated with the second user profile; determining, based on the list of one or more meeting criteria and the second user profile data, that the second user profile satisfies a role associated with the list of one or more meeting criteria; and causing, based on the second user profile satisfying the role associated with the list of one or more meeting criteria, the meeting/event to be associated with the second user profile. (Waugh [0037] discloses A representative use example is as follows. A meeting organizer (e.g., a representative of Enterprise Y) is setting up a meeting with company A about an opportunity X. The meeting organizer has invited their manager to the meeting and has invited the contact at company A that they have been primarily working on the opportunity with. An automated invitee recommendation module, as disclosed hereon, is configured to review the meeting information, the contact information available, patterns from similar opportunity meetings from past opportunities and recommend that the meeting organizer invites the department manager for the contact at company A, and/or another contact at company A that the meeting organizer has a strong relationship with from a past successful opportunity.)
Regarding claims 5/11/18, Although Waugh discloses systems and methods for scheduling meetings, Waugh does not specifically disclose updating meeting criteria. However, Aher discloses the following limitations:
The system of claim 1; The one or more non transitory computer readable media of claim 7; The method of claim 14, the operations further comprising: determining that the recommendation comprises a list of one or more suggested user profiles associated with the group of users; receiving, from the user profile and based on displaying the recommendation, second user input data representing an updated meeting including at least a portion of the list of one or more suggested user profiles; and generating, based on the second user input data, the updated meeting/event. (Aher [0049] discloses meeting module 514 also updates its preference values, to more accurately track and respond to participant preferences that may change over time. Fig.2 discloses user input and display interface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for predicting meetings of Waugh with the meeting platform of Aher in order to improve participant interest in meetings (Aher abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 6/12/19, Waugh discloses:
The system of claim 1; The one or more non transitory computer readable media of claim 7; The method of claim 14, wherein determining the second data is based on: determining that the list of one or more meeting criteria comprises one or more conditions associated with historical data of the user profile data; and determining, based on the one or more conditions and the user profile data, whether at least a portion of the group of users satisfy the one or more conditions. (Waugh [0102] discloses Step 34: Identify contacts from the relationship database 122 that have a role similar to roles of the invitees included in matching meeting list 401, and retrieve their contact information. In example embodiments, the presently disclosed recommendation system assumes that having a similar mix of individuals, as represented by the roles of such individuals, at a scheduled meeting as have been involved in similar historic meetings may improve a successful outcome. In example embodiments, an individual's role is a combination of that individual's title and department.)
Regarding claims 13/20, Although Waugh discloses systems and methods for scheduling meetings, Waugh does not specifically disclose updating meeting criteria. However, Aher discloses the following limitations:
The one or more non transitory computer readable media of claim 7; The method of claim 14, wherein receiving the user input data is based at least in part on: causing the recommendation to be displayed via a user interface associated with the user profile of the user. ((Aher [0049] discloses meeting module 514 also updates its preference values, to more accurately track and respond to participant preferences that may change over time. Fig.2 discloses user input and display interface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for predicting meetings of Waugh with the meeting platform of Aher in order to improve participant interest in meetings (Aher abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights