DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed 7/29/225.
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 Claims
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-11, 14, 17-18 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to amendment
The amendment filed 7/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on page 10 of the remarks that the claim amendments render the rejection moot. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG) and under step 2A of the analysis of claims per the Alice framework, if a claim limitation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103:
Applicant submits that the applied references do not disclose the amended limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Catone discloses threshold criteria in at least [0011-0013].
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.
7.With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 7 and 14) are directed, in part, to a method and a system to generate meetings. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-6 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine, claims 7-13 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium, which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture and claims 14-20 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a 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 relationships or interactions between people.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to 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, 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; 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; 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; causing, based at least in part on determining that the confidence level meets or exceeds the threshold number, the recommendation to be displayed via a user interface associated with the user profile of the user; receiving, in response to displaying the recommendation and from the user profile, user input data representing an intent to generate the meeting; and generating, based on the user input data, the meeting with the group of users. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing relationships or interactions between people then it falls within 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, the claims recite additional elements: processors, non-transitory computer readable medium, communication platform, user interface. These additional elements in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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 § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11-14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2024/0054548 (hereinafter; Catone).
Regarding claims 1/7/14, Catone discloses:
A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that; One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising; A method comprising: receiving, from a user profile of a user associated with a communication platform, first data representing a request to generate a meeting with a group of users, (Catone [0060] discloses meeting requests.) wherein the request comprises a list of one or more meeting criteria to be achieved in association with the meeting; (Catone [0003] discloses pairing and scheduling users based on criteria.) 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; (Catone [0029] discloses A user may access service coordination system 112 to find a service provider using the platform, to communicate with a service provider, view information related to their profile on the platform and/or the like; [0057] discloses a schedule data store with calendar data.) determining, based on the calendar data, the user profile data, and the list of one or more meeting/event 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; (Catone [0003] discloses pairing recommendations; See also [0071-0073].) causing, based at least in part on determining that the confidence level meets or exceeds the threshold number, the recommendation to be displayed via a user interface associated with the user profile of the user; (Catone [0013] discloses threshold criteria; [0062] discloses Once a SP has received a certain number of ratings, such as, for example, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, and/or the like, an overall rating may be generated by the service coordination system 112 and the overall rating may be displayed on the SP's profile that is viewable by a user prior to or during the matching/pairing process. In some embodiments, individual ratings may only impact a user's overall rating for a certain amount of time.) receiving, in response to displaying the recommendation and from the user profile 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 meeting/event; (Catone[0013] discloses threshold criteria; [0060-0061] disclose users accepting the invite and pairing requests.) and generating, based on the user input data, the meeting with the group of users. (Catone [0193-0194] disclose The selection notification indicates to the SP that they have been selected to meet with the user. The calendar data modifies the selected SPs calendar to show a meeting at a specific time scheduled with the user. As described further herein, the calendar data may include a modification of the user interfaces on the selected SP device 104. At block 520, at or around the scheduled meeting time, the selected SP initiates a connection via the SP device 104 with the user device 102 using the service coordination system 112 (for example, using video conferencing component 224).)
Regarding claims 5/11/18, Catone discloses:
The system of claim 1; The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 7, the operations further comprising; The method of claim 14, 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. (Catone [0135] discloses At block 314, a SP receives via SP device 104 a notification from service coordination system 112 which may indicate that the SP was selected as a potential candidate to match with a user. The notification may include further information such as, for example, one or more times when the user would like to meet, information about the user, and/or the like. Depending on the threshold criteria being applied, the timeliness of a SP's response may impact whether they are included in the SP list transmitted to the user at block 324. For example, where the threshold criteria was a time response criteria, only the first set number of SPs who accepted the invite notification would be included in the SP list. If the service coordination system 112 determines that the set number has been met, no more acceptance responses would be accepted by the system and the SPs may be further updated. For example, where the SP list is full, the invite notification may disappear from the SP's user interface, or the SP may receive a further update indicating that the potential match is no longer available. In some embodiments, invite notification may indicate that there is a time response criteria for the particular invite.)
Regarding claims 6/12/19, Catone 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/event 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. (Catone [0128] discloses a list of SPs presented to the user in response to the meeting request; [01-290130] discloses the matching and ranking process for meeting requests; The machine learning component 212 may also be used in the ranking process by, for example, adjusting the weight each preferred qualification gets in the ranking process based on previous successful pairings.)
Regarding claims 13/20, Catone discloses:
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. (Catone [0062] discloses Once a SP has received a certain number of ratings, such as, for example, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, and/or the like, an overall rating may be generated by the service coordination system 112 and the overall rating may be displayed on the SP's profile that is viewable by a user prior to or during the matching/pairing process. In some embodiments, individual ratings may only impact a user's overall rating for a certain amount of time.)
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.
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) 2-4, 8-10, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catone in view of US Pub. No. 2004/0003042 (hereinafter; Horvitz).
Regarding claims 2/8/15, although Catone discloses systems and methods for generating meetings, Catone does not specifically disclose types of roles. However, Horvitz 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, wherein the list of one or more meeting/event criteria comprises at least one of: one or more first types of roles that are to be included in the meeting/event, one or more second types of roles that are optional for the meeting/event, 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. (Horvitz [0082] discloses Beyond time of day, and day of week, meeting properties considered at training and prediction time include the meeting date and time, meeting duration, subject, location, organizer, number and nature of the invitees, role of the user (user was the organizer versus a required or optional invitee), response status of the user (responded yes, responded as tentative, did not respond, or no response request was made), whether the meeting is recurrent or not, and whether the time is marked as busy or free on the user's calendar.)
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 matching and pairing users of Catone with the models that provide forecasts of one or more aspects of a users' presence and availability of Horvitz in order to facilitate collaboration and communication between users (Horvitz 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 3/9/16, although Catone discloses systems and methods for generating meetings, Catone does not specifically disclose types of roles. However, Horvitz discloses the following limitations:
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. (Horvitz [0157] discloses contacts data including identity of contactors (e.g., employer, employees, critical colleague, colleague.)
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 matching and pairing users of Catone with the models that provide forecasts of one or more aspects of a users' presence and availability of Horvitz in order to facilitate collaboration and communication between users (Horvitz 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 4/10/17, although Catone discloses systems and methods for generating meetings, Catone does not specifically disclose types of roles. However, Horvitz discloses the following limitations:
The system of claim 1; The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 7, the operations further comprising; The method of claim 14, 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 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/event criteria and the second user profile data, that the second user profile satisfies a role associated with the list of one or more meeting/event criteria; and causing, based on the second user profile satisfying the role associated with the list of one or more meeting/event criteria, the meeting/event to be associated with the second user profile. (Horvitz [0082] discloses Beyond time of day, and day of week, meeting properties considered at training and prediction time include the meeting date and time, meeting duration, subject, location, organizer, number and nature of the invitees, role of the user (user was the organizer versus a required or optional invitee), response status of the user (responded yes, responded as tentative, did not respond, or no response request was made), whether the meeting is recurrent or not, and whether the time is marked as busy or free on the user's calendar.)
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 matching and pairing users of Catone with the models that provide forecasts of one or more aspects of a users' presence and availability of Horvitz in order to facilitate collaboration and communication between users (Horvitz 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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