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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 9/2/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the rejections under 112(b) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action 6/2/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with the amendment have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that:
1. The Office Action's Interpretation Of "Third Party" Is Erroneous And
Cannot Sustain The Rejection.
…
Nor does the present Office Action cure the deficiency. The Office Action
observes that Gupta's third-party meeting tool, bridge service, and collaboration tool "are each instantiated over different, independent, and distinct physical hardware," and that "the 'system' can be the Collaboration Tool or The Bridge Service and Collaboration Tool." [Office Action, p. 6]. Distribution across distinct hardware does not constitute operating outside a system - the claims recite both requirements conjunctively, and Gupta gathers all three components within a single collaborative work environment notwithstanding their hardware separation. Neither may the system be designated at
will, the claims defining it as the system that includes the server managing the environment state information.
Regarding the claim language “obtain, by the server, the third-party content from third-party resources managed by third-party servers, the third-party servers being separate and distinct from the server and operating outside of the system which includes the server managing the environment state information” the Office Action dated 6/2/2026 cites Gupta, Fig. 1, 2A, 3 with ¶0082-¶0083, ¶0091, ¶0116-¶0118, ¶0143. In particular, Gupta at ¶0083 recites (emphasis added):
[0083] More specifically, FIG. 1 depicts a collaborative work environment 100 that includes a bridge service 102, a third-party meeting tool 104, and a collaboration tool 106. Each of the bridge service 102, the third-party meeting tool 104, and the collaboration tool 106 can be configured to operate as an instance of software independently instantiated over a server system. In some cases, one or more of the bridge service 102, the third-party meeting tool 104, and the collaboration tool 106 may be instantiated over the same physical resources (e.g., memory, processor, and so on), whereas in other cases, each of the bridge service 102, the third-party meeting tool 104, and the collaboration tool 106 are instantiated over different, independent, and distinct physical hardware.
[0084] As the manner by which the bridge service 102, the third-party meeting tool 104, and the collaboration tool 106 are instantiated varies from embodiment to embodiment, FIG. 1 depicts each of the bridge service 102, the third-party meeting tool 104, and the collaboration tool 106 as supported by dedicated resource allocations. In particular, the bridge service 102 is supported by the resource allocation 102a, the third-party meeting tool 104 is supported by the resource allocation 104a, and the collaboration tool 106 is supported by the resource allocation 106a.
PNG
media_image1.png
308
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Clearly, from the above, it can be seen that the third-party meeting tool server(s), the bridge service server(s), and the collaboration tool server(s), meet the claim requirement of being separate and distinct from one another.
For example, the “system” of claim 1 is interpreted as analogous to the Collaboration Tool (Element 106) and/or Bridge Service (Element 102). Thus, third-party meeting tool (Element 104) is separate and distinct and operates outside of the “system” as required by claim 1. Regarding the claim language “obtain, by the server, the third-party content from third-party resources managed by third-party servers”, Gupta recites (emphasis added):
[0073] In yet further embodiments, a bridge service as described herein can be configured to retrieve information from a third-party meeting service, use that information to extract task and/or issue data from one or more collaboration tools and process the extracted information to generate graphical summaries that are displayed by the third-party meeting service. For example, in one embodiment, a participant in a meeting may request to view a summary of tasks and/or issues that have been discussed, created, updated or are otherwise associated with a current meeting. In response, the bridge service can use the meeting identification to retrieve task and/or issue data associated with the meeting identification from a collaboration tool such as a task management system. In some cases, the bridge service can analyze the information and generate graphical summaries for the task information. For example, the graphical summaries can include a number of tasks associated with a particular meeting, a status of the tasks such as how many are complete, how many are in progress and how many are waiting to be started. The graphical summaries can include information about particular tasks such as a titles, dates the tasks were created, dates the tasks were finished, and so on. In some cases, the task information can be analyzed to determine if the tasks are progressing on schedule, how task completion is contributing to larger projects such as a project that the meeting is created for and so on. The bridge service can cause the third-party meeting system to display the graphical summaries during a meeting. For example, the third-party meeting service can display graphical summaries on the screens of one or more user's client devices. Accordingly, users of the meeting may be able to efficiently review, track and/or edit tasks.
[0091] FIG. 2A depicts the collaborative work environment 200 that includes, as one example, a third-party video conferencing platform 200a that is communicably coupled to a bridge service 200b which, in turn, is communicably coupled to one or more collaboration tools 200c. In some cases, the bridge service 200b is a plugin to the third-party video conferencing platform 200a (and executes over the same hardware thereof), whereas in other cases, the bridge service 200b executes over different and separate hardware. This general architecture facilitates various embodiments described herein in which team-generated content (including chat content, transcript content, file sharing, and others) produced or otherwise generated during a video conference facilitated by the third-party video conferencing platform 200a can be captured and aggregated by the bridge service 200b and, in turn, stored into one or more selected collaboration tools among the one or more collaboration tools 200c. In addition, as noted above, the bridge service 200b can obtain information from one or more collaboration tools 200c to input to a video conference, such as via a chat window of the third-party video conferencing platform 200a, as a video participant (e.g., by sharing a screen, providing text in a video stream, via audio in a video stream), and so on.
[0109] In the first case, the bridge service instance 202 may identify, based on an output of the input classifier 228, that the statement “we should open a ticket” comprises an “Intent.” In addition, the bridge service instance 202 may leverage an output of the content analyzer 232 to extract the phrases “new ticket,” “data integrity bug” and the name “John” from the statement. With these phrases, the bridge service instance 202 can determine that the speaker, Jane, has assigned a new task to John with the title “Data Integrity Bug.” This determination can be used to select the issue tracking service 218, select an API endpoint, such as the API endpoint 222, of the issue tracking service 218 specific to creating issues, and generate a request object 234 to provide as input to the issue tracking service.
[0143] In some cases, the text entry field 714 can function as a command line control from the bridge service. For example, the input text 706 may include a command designated by a special character or string of characters that can be used to designate the input text 706 as a command-line input. An example command-line input may include a special character (e.g., forward slash “/,” backslash “\,” at sign “@”) followed by a command line string designating the command (e.g., “/dashboard”). The command-line input may also include one or more arguments that specify a format or type of dashboard to be presented (e.g., “/dashboard-standard” or “/dashboard-delta”). In this regard, commands for the bridge service can be entered into the text entry field to cause the bridge service to perform specific functions. In some cases, the commands can be identified based on a specific format of the text, special characters, or other command designations that are identified by the video conferencing application as a command and then relayed by the bridge service. The commands can cause the bridge service to perform different functions such as to generate a default set of graphical summaries for display in the video conference application. In some cases, the format and/or content of the command can indicate a specific type summary or data that a user wants to see. For example, a meeting participant can input a command to view data to a specific set of users, and in response to receiving this command, the bridge service can make API calls to one or more third party services and/or analyze meeting data to generate the requested graphical summary.
Examples such as the ones listed can be found throughout Gupta, including additionally ¶0157-¶0160. It is clear from the above that the third-party server architecture limitations recited in claim 1 are met by Gupta without requiring any element expressly included within the “system” of claim 1 to also be third-party servers.
Applicant argues that:
2. The Office Action Assigns The Same Limitation To Two References In The
Alternative And Identifies Neither As The Locus.
Claim 1 recites "values of the embedded content parameters" in four places: the
third-party content records store them; they are updated based on the first information characterizing the video conferencing layout; the user interface presents them; and they are updated based on the responses obtained from the video conferencing application. The Office Action strikes that phrase, or its equivalent, at each occurrence. [Office Action, pp. 6-8]. Strikethrough is the sole mechanism by which the Office Action allocates claim language between the two references, and the Office Action states that the notation was "added by the Examiner." [Office Action, p. 5]. The Office Action then states that "Gupta appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above," and turns to Greenblatt for those limitations. [Office Action, pp. 9-10].
The interview established a position that does not correspond to that allocation. As confirmed above, what Gupta is relied upon as having in place of the struck language "values of the embedded content parameters" is task information for tasks obtained during a meeting, and that reading applies wherever the phrase or its equivalent is struck. It was further confirmed that Greenblatt is relied upon in an additive manner and is not applied to replace or substitute for anything disclosed in Gupta. The record therefore supports two mutually exclusive readings of the rejection, and the Office Action does not indicate which is intended.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. Gupta discloses updating values of parameters. However, Gupta does not appear to disclose updating values of the embedded content parameters. Both of these statements are true, and neither generates an inconsistency with relying upon Greenblatt to teach updated embedded content parameters. For the sake of compact prosecution going forward, the strikethrough notation has been adjusted to better align with Applicant’s reading. To be clear, Gupta does not appear to expressly disclose the limitations indicated in strikethrough.
Applicant argues that:
Applicant cannot be required to select among alternative rejections on the
Examiner's behalf. Where a reference is relied upon, the Office Action must designate the particular part relied upon as nearly as practicable. [37 C.F.R. § 1.104(c)(2)]. The Office bears the initial burden of supplying the factual basis for a rejection and may not rest that basis on speculation or unfounded assumption. [MPEP § 2142]. A rejection that assigns the same claim limitation to two references in the alternative, without stating which supplies it, does not place Applicant on notice of the grounds to be answered and does not establish a prima facie case.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. It is clearly stated, for example, at Page 9 of the Office action dated 6/2/2026 that Gupta is not relied upon to teach updating the values of the embedded content parameters specifically.
Applicant argues that:
3. The Task Information Relied Upon Is, By The Office Action's Own Mapping,
The Subject Matter Of The Separately Recited Environment Parameters.
Claim 1 recites two record types holding two parameter sets, and expressly assigns each parameter set a different object of characterization. Claim 11 recites similar subject matter.
…
As confirmed in the interview, the Office Action relies on Gupta as having task information for tasks obtained during a meeting in place of the struck "values of the embedded content parameters." The consequence is that the same category of Gupta subject matter - task and issue information - is relied upon to meet both recited
parameter sets. That result gives the two claim terms a single referent and reads the recited distinction out of claim 1 (and similarly claim 11).
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. The strikethrough notation indicates limitations that are not expressly disclosed in Gupta.
Applicant argues that:
That the task information is characterized as obtained "during a meeting" does not place it on the third-party content side of the claim. The claim does not distinguish the two parameter sets by where their values originate; it distinguishes them by what they characterize. A task captured from a meeting is still a unit of work, and information describing that task characterizes the task - its name, its assignee, its status - not the third-party video conferencing content from which it was captured. Likewise, a Gupta record corresponding to a tracked issue or task is a record corresponding to a unit of work, not a record "corresponding to third-party content embedded within the collaboration environment." Provenance does not convert environment-parameter subject matter into embedded content parameters.
As mentioned in the Office Action, and during the Interview dated 7/14/2026, the strikethrough notation indicates limitations that are not expressly disclosed in Gupta. The Office Action clearly indicates that Gupta does not disclose the values of the embedded content parameters.
Applicant argues that:
4. The Recited "Update" Is Predicated On Information Characterizing A Video
Conferencing Layout, Which Task Information Cannot Satisfy.
Claim 1 recites a two-step sequence in which the second step is conditioned on the first: the server is to "obtain, by the server and from the video conferencing application, first information characterizing a video conferencing layout of a third-party user interface of the video conferencing application," and then to "update, by the server, the values of the embedded content parameters based on the first information." Claim 11 recites similar features. The predicate of the "update" is information characterizing a layout, obtained from the video conferencing application, describing that application's own interface. As reproduced in the Office Action, the object of the update is struck, so that the clause reads "update, by the server, the based on the first information." [Office Action, p. 7]. Supplying the reading confirmed in the interview, the assertion is that Gupta updates task information for tasks obtained during a meeting on the basis of information characterizing a video conferencing layout.
The cited disclosure does not describe that operation. For this clause the Office Action cites Gupta paragraphs 0051-0062 and 0157, characterized as disclosing that an "issue tracking tool can track tasks added during interaction by users managed by the third-party tool" and that "[t]he environment parameters include issues or tasks and users." [Office Action, p. 7]. Those citations are directed to what is tracked, not to an update performed on the basis of layout-characterizing information. The remaining citations describe the opposite flow: that a "user inputs a command into the chat interface of the video conferencing system," that a "response from the collaboration tool is embedded in the chat interface," and that "[b]oth the command and the response are displayed as part of the video conference interface layout, and are formatted according to the collaboration software format." [Office Action, pp. 7-8, citing Gupta Fig. 2A with
0056-0057, 0072-0073]; see also [Office Action, p. 8, citing Gupta 0030-0032, 0037, 0091, 0108, 0127].
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. Gupta’s Figures 7B and 8 are shown for convenience.
PNG
media_image2.png
406
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
470
744
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The dashboard command (in Fig. 7), as an example, results in an updated layout (in Fig. 8) which is based on the task information. The task information can be updated by input commands and results in a change in layout in either interface.
Gupta is not relied upon to teach “update, by the server, the values of the embedded content parameters based on the first information”, which is disclosed in Greenblatt as cited.
Applicant argues that:
The same defect attends the second recitation of the update, which requires "updating the values of the embedded content parameters based on the one or more responses" obtained by API call; the support offered is that "[m]eeting software may be third party software and provide parameters via API" and that data is extracted "from third-party meeting service," but what must be updated are values characterizing the third-party content, which for the reasons herein, task information does not. [Office Action, pp. 8-9, citing Gupta 0051-0062, 0157].
Gupta is not relied upon to teach "updating the values of the embedded content parameters based on the one or more responses", which is disclosed in Greenblatt as cited.
Applicant argues that:
Under the reading in which Greenblatt supplies the values of the embedded content parameters, the rejection would have to establish that those values are updated on the basis of information characterizing a video conferencing layout of a third-party user interface of a video conferencing application. Greenblatt is relied upon only for a calendar view layout of a third-party calendar and for calendar entry records. [Office Action, pp. 9-10].
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. Gupta is not relied upon to teach “wherein the user interface presents… the values of the embedded content parameters”. Additionally, Greenblatt discloses updating the values of the embedded content parameters based on the layout (Greenblatt, ¶0043. Figs. 7C-7H with ¶0134-0137).
Applicant argues that:
5. Applicant's Argument Regarding The Direction Of Embedding Was Not
Reached.
In the Response filed December 8, 2025, Applicant established that Gupta
describes collaboration-tool content being introduced into the interface of the third-party video conferencing platform, rather than third-party video conferencing content being displayed within the interface of the collaboration environment as claim 1 (and claim 11) recites. [Response filed December 8, 2025, pp. 14-15]. The Office Action does not address that argument, stating instead that the remainder of Applicant's prior art21
arguments "are moot in view of the above or in view of new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment." [Office Action, p. 4]. Neither basis applies.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. The collaboration environment is mapped to Gupta’s “Collaborative Work Environment”, Fig. 1 Element 100, also Fig. 2A Element 200 (Office Action 6/2/2026 at least Page 6). Gupta’s video conferencing interface (e.g. Fig .2A Element 200a) is an interface of the collaborative work environment.
Applicant argues that:
6. The Articulated Rationale Does Not Support The Modification The Rejection
Requires.
…
An obviousness rejection must rest on articulated reasoning with rational
underpinning directed to the modification actually proposed. [MPEP §§ 2142, 2143]. The Office Action's rationale is directed to a modification other than the one the rejection requires. Claim 1 recites no calendar, and Gupta is not relied upon in the rejection of claim 1 as disclosing a calendar; the claim 1 mapping is to a video conferencing application. [Office Action, pp. 6-9].
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. Gupta recites calendar events at ¶0136 and claim 6 as published. That a calendar is not cited for earlier limitations within the claim does not prevent Gupta from containing a calendar, nor does it prevent that feature of Gupta from being modified.
Applicant argues that:
The modification the rejection requires is the addition of third-party content records storing values of embedded content parameters that characterize third-party content obtained from a video conferencing application, and that are updated based on information characterizing that application's video conferencing layout. A stated reason to modify "the calendar of Gupta" so as to include "embedded calendar parameters of a third-party calendar interface," motivated by "more efficient calendar entry creation and compatibility with a variety of calendaring systems," supplies no reason to make that modification.
That the rationale is not tailored to any particular modification is evident from its reuse. The same motivation, "to enable more efficient calendar entry creation and compatibility with a variety of calendaring systems," citing the same Greenblatt paragraphs, is stated verbatim in support of four different modifications: the addition of embedded content parameter architecture to the video conferencing subject matter of claims 1 and 11, and the addition of a web form application in claims 10 and 20. [Office Action, pp. 10, 13, 18, 20-21]. A single calendar-focused sentence cannot establish the obviousness of modifications spanning video conferencing embedding and web form applications alike.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. The motivation cited can and does apply to multiple modifications, as Greenblatt indicates. The fact that the same motivation might apply to multiple modifications, or that a single modification might be performed for a variety of purposes, is not disqualifying of the motivation.
Applicant argues that:
Applicant notes that a different rationale was advanced during the interview: that Greenblatt is relied upon for an embedded-content concept which it happens to describe in a calendar context, and that calendars and video conferencing applications may be treated alike because both interoperate with task management software. That
reasoning does not appear in the Office Action, and a rejection must stand on the reasoning of record. In any event, the proposition establishes at most that both are third-party services capable of interoperating with a collaboration environment. It does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would derive values of embedded content parameters from information characterizing a video conferencing layout, why presentation of those values would yield display of the third-party content in that application's own video conferencing layout, or why either result would have been predictable. [MPEP §§ 2143(C) and (D)]. A prima facie case of obviousness has not been established.
The Examiner cannot concur with the Applicant. Greenblatt discloses an embedded calendar interface which includes display of calendar events within a layout defined by the calendar events. Greenblatt indicates that this arrangement, which is achieved by the disclosed technical methods, is desirable for more efficient calendar entry creation (Greenblatt, ¶0005-¶0006, ¶0029) and compatibility with a variety of calendaring systems (Greenblatt, ¶0030-¶0032).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 13 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.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this Office Action:
Gupta et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0207489), referred to as Gupta herein [included in Applicant’s IDS dated 10/10/2023].
Greenblatt et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0193392), referred to as Greenblatt herein [previously cited].
Examiner’s Note
Strikethrough notation in the pending claims has been added by the Examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta in view of Greenblatt.
Regarding claim 1, Gupta discloses a system configured to effectuate sets of automated actions within a collaboration environment based on trigger events derived from third-party content embedded in the collaboration environment, the system comprising: one or more physical processors of a server configured by machine-readable instructions to (Gupta, ¶0083, ¶0168 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory. Fig. 1 with ¶0082-¶0083 - Collaborative work environment Element 100. The Third-Party Meeting Tool, Bridge Service, and Collaboration Tool are each instantiated over different, independent, and distinct physical hardware, including instantiation within independent server systems. In this case, the “system” can be the Collaboration Tool and/or The Bridge Service. ¶0013 – third-party video conferencing platform. ¶0051-¶0062 – issue tracking tool can track tasks triggered by interaction from users in the collaboration environment):
manage, by the server, environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment, the collaboration environment being configured to facilitate interaction by users with the collaboration environment through a user interface of the collaboration environment (Gupta, ¶0035-¶0037 – team-generated content is input into the collaboration tool. ¶0026, ¶0073 – tasks are managed by the collaboration tool. Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7A-7B, and 8 with ¶0016-¶0018, ¶0021-¶0022 – users can interact with the collaborative work environment via a user interface),
the environment state information including work unit records
managed by third-party servers, the third-party servers being separate and distinct from the server and operating outside of the system which includes the server managing the environment state information (Gupta, Fig. 2A, 3 with ¶0073, ¶0091, ¶0109, ¶0116-¶0118, ¶0143 – third-party video conference content is embedded with the collaboration environment. Data can be retrieved for embedding via API calls to third party services. Fig. 1 with ¶0082-¶0083, ¶0091 - the Third-Party Meeting Tool, Bridge Service, and Collaboration Tool are each instantiated over different, independent, and distinct physical hardware, including instantiation within independent server systems),
the third-party resources including a video conferencing application provided by a first third-party server operating outside of the system which includes the server managing the environment state information (Gupta, Fig. 2A, 3 with ¶0091, ¶0116-¶0118, ¶0143 – third-party video conference content is embedded with the collaboration environment. Data can be retrieved for embedding via API calls to third party services. Fig. 1 with ¶0082-¶0083 - the Third Party Meeting Tool, Bridge Service, and Collaboration Tool are each instantiated over different, independent, and distinct physical hardware, including instantiation within independent server systems);
obtain, by the server and from the video conferencing application, first information characterizing a video conferencing layout of a third-party user interface of the video conferencing application¶0108, ¶0127 – screen sharing and document sharing of the third-party interface streamed by users during the session);
effectuate presentation of the user interface of the collaboration environment through which the users interact with the collaboration environment (Gupta, Fig. 1 with ¶0083 – collaborative work environment. Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7A-7B, and 8 with ¶0016-¶0018, ¶0021-¶0022 – users can interact with the collaborative work environment via a user interface);
effectuate presentation of a video conferencing view in the user interface of the collaboration environment through which the users interact with the video conferencing application (Gupta, Fig. 2A with ¶0083, ¶0090 – collaborative work environment includes a video conference application interface),
wherein the user interface presents the values of the environment parameters
wherein the third-party content obtained from the video conferencing application is obtained by the server by performing one or more application programming interface calls to the video conferencing application, obtaining one or more responses from the video conferencing application, and updating the values input of particular commands, and the automated response is the capture of a task. ¶0051-¶0062 – Meeting software may be third party software and provide parameters via API. ¶0157 – extracting data from third-party meeting service);
detect an occurrence of a first trigger event, wherein the first trigger event is associated with automation information that specifies a first set of automated actions to carry out within the collaboration environment in response to the first trigger event derived from the third-party content of the video conference application displayed within the user interface of the collaboration environment in the same video conferencing layout as the video conferencing layout of the third-party user interface of the video conferencing application (Gupta, Fig. 7B with ¶0074, ¶0146-¶0148, ¶0139, ¶0144 ¶0151-¶0152 – issue data is tracked based on changes or lack of change to the tracked data. Bot responses based on prompts within the chat interface result in providing information directly in the current meeting. See Fig. 7B showing the Bot response. Graphical summaries are triggered based on changes to tracked issues. Dashboard link is displayed within the chat log of the video conference); and
responsive to the detection of the occurrence of the first trigger event, effectuate the first set of automated actions within the collaboration environment (Gupta, ¶0074, ¶0146-¶0148 – issue data is tracked based on changes or lack of change to the tracked data. Graphical summaries are triggered based on changes to tracked issues. See also ¶0151-¶0152).
However, Gupta appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Greenblatt discloses a calendar system (Greenblatt, Abstract), including
the third-party content records corresponding to third party content embedded within the collaboration environment and storing values of embedded content parameters, the embedded content parameters characterizing the third-party content embedded within the collaboration environment (Greenblatt, Figs. 3B, 7C-7H with ¶0034, ¶0042-¶0043, ¶0076, ¶0133, ¶0163-¶0213 – web-based calendar view layout of the third party calendar, including a view layout for inputs to the calendar as well as a view layout of the user’s other calendar events. Fig. 1 with ¶0030-¶0034 – calendar server system is separate and distinct from the client and web hosting servers. Fig. 4 with ¶0038-¶0043, ¶0078, ¶0174 – calendaring server system includes records for calendar entries including parameters such a start and end times, attendees, etc.).
update, by the server, the values of the embedded content parameters based on the layout and wherein the user interface presents the values of the embedded content parameters so that the third-party content obtained is displayed within the user interface (Greenblatt, ¶0043 – display of an editable electronic calendar entry form. Figs. 7C-7H with ¶0134-0137 – the user’s agenda near the time of the event affects the layout of the embedded calendar content. Edits or updates to the calendar invoke a corresponding update to the display of the user’s agenda. See also ¶0163-¶0172 – the interface displays agenda items near the time of the event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the calendar of Gupta to include embedded calendar parameters of a third-party calendar interface based on the teachings of Greenblatt. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable more efficient calendar entry creation (Greenblatt, ¶0005-¶0006, ¶0029) and compatibility with a variety of calendaring systems (Greenblatt, ¶0030-¶0032).
Regarding claim 2, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the third-party resources further include a calendar application, and wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: obtain, by the server and from the calendar application, second information characterizing a calendar view layout of a second third-party user interface of the calendar application; and update, by the server, the values of the embedded content parameters based on the second information (Greenblatt, Figs. 3B, 7C-7H with ¶0034, ¶0042-¶0043, ¶0076, ¶0133, ¶0163-¶0213 – web-based calendar view layout of the third party calendar, including a view layout for inputs to the calendar as well as a view layout of the user’s other calendar events. Fig. 1 with ¶0032-¶0034 – calendar server system).
Regarding claim 4, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein an automated action is defined by a target component and an action component, the target component identifies an environment parameter to which an action is to be carried out with, and the action component defines instructions to effectuate the action with respect to the environment parameter (Gupta, ¶0051-¶0062 – command, target user, and task are input to track a task).
Regarding claim 5, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the first trigger event is defined by a source component and an event component, the source component identifies an embedded content parameter from which occurrences of the first trigger event are derived, and the event component defines a state of the embedded content parameter dictating the occurrences of the first trigger event (Gupta, ¶0074, ¶0146-¶0148 – issue data is tracked based on changes or lack of change to the tracked data. Graphical summaries are triggered based on changes to tracked issues. See also ¶0151-¶0152. For example, a source component can refer to a status field and the state of the parameter can refer to a state such as “closed” or “active”).
Regarding claim 6, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 5 above and further discloses wherein the state of the embedded content parameter dictating the occurrences of the first trigger event includes a change of a value of the embedded content parameter, such that the first trigger event is associated with the change (Gupta, ¶0051-¶0062 – command, target user, and task are input to track a task. ¶0074, ¶0146-¶0148 – issue data is tracked based on changes or lack of change to the tracked data. Graphical summaries are triggered based on changes to tracked issues. See also ¶0151-¶0152).
Regarding claim 7, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 5 above and further discloses wherein the state of the embedded content parameter dictating the occurrences of the first trigger event includes a specific value of the embedded content parameter, such that the first trigger event is associated with the specific value (Gupta, ¶0051-¶0062 – command, target user, and task are input to track a task. ¶0074, ¶0146-¶0148 – issue data is tracked based on changes or lack of change to the tracked data. Graphical summaries are triggered based on change or lack of change to tracked issues. See also ¶0151-¶0152).
Regarding claim 8, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the automation information further specifies one or more trigger events are derived from one or more of the values of the environment parameters (Gupta, ¶0051-¶0062 – command, target user, and task are input to track a task. ¶0074, ¶0146-¶0148 – issue data is tracked based on changes or lack of change to the tracked data. Graphical summaries are triggered based on change or lack of change to tracked issues. See also ¶0151-¶0152. For example, an environment parameter can be a user invitee/project/task correlated with a particular status).
Regarding claim 9, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the third-party resources further include one or more of a payment application, a social media application, a customer relationship management application, a ticketing application, a partner relationship management application, or a web form application (Gupta, Fig. 7 with ¶0028 – social media applications such as chat, discussion, and conferencing platforms. ¶0031-¶0032, ¶0051 – management of task relationship between team-members (partners). ¶0108-¶0109 – ticket management application).
Regarding claim 10, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 9 above and further discloses wherein the third-party resources includes the web form application or the payment application (Greenblatt, Figs. 3B, 7C-7H with ¶0034, ¶0043, ¶0076, ¶0133, ¶0163-¶0213 – web-based calendar entry form includes form fields).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the calendar of Gupta to include a web form application based on the teachings of Greenblatt. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable more efficient calendar entry creation and compatibility with a variety of calendaring systems (Greenblatt, ¶0029-¶0039).
Regarding claim 11, Gupta discloses a method to effectuate sets of automated actions within a collaboration environment based on trigger events derived from third-party content embedded in the collaboration environment, the method comprising (Gupta, ¶0083, ¶0168 – processor executing instructions stored in hardware memory. ¶0013 – video conferencing platform. ¶0051-¶0062 – issue tracking tool can track tasks triggered by interaction from users in the collaboration environment. Meeting software may be third party software):
managing, by a server, environment state information maintaining a collaboration environment, the collaboration environment being configured to facilitate interaction by users with the collaboration environment through a user interface of the collaboration environment (Gupta, Fig. 1 with ¶0083 – collaborative work environment. Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7A-7B, and 8 with ¶0016-¶0018, ¶0021-¶0022 – users can interact with the collaborative work environment via a user interface),
the environment state information including work unit records
the third-party resources including a video conferencing application provided by a first third-party server operating outside of the system which includes the server managing the environment state information (Gupta, Fig. 2A, 3 with ¶0091, ¶0116-¶0118, ¶0143 – third-party video conference content is embedded with the collaboration environment. Data can be retrieved for embedding via API calls to third party services. Fig. 1 with ¶0082-¶0083 - the Third Party Meeting Tool, Bridge Service, and Collaboration Tool are each instantiated over different, independent, and distinct physical hardware, including instantiation within independent server systems);
obtaining, by the server and from the video conferencing application, first information characterizing a video conferencing layout of a third-party user interface of the video conferencing application;
effectuating presentation of the user interface of the collaboration environment through which the users interact with the collaboration environment (Gupta, Fig. 1 with ¶0083 – collaborative work environment. Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7A-7B, and 8 with ¶0016-¶0018, ¶0021-¶0022 – users can interact with the collaborative work environment via a user interface);
effectuating presentation of a video conferencing view in the user interface of the collaboration environment through which the users interact with the video conferencing application (Gupta, Fig. 2A with ¶0083, ¶0090 – collaborative work environment includes a video conference application interface),
wherein the user interface presents the values of the environment parameters and the conferencing application is displayed within the user interface of the collaboration environment in a same video conferencing layout as the video conferencing layout of the third-party user interface of the video conferencing application (Gupta, ¶0073-¶0074, ¶0146-¶0148 – issue data is tracked based on changes or lack of change to the tracked data. Graphical summaries are triggered based on changes to tracked issues. ¶0050-¶0051, ¶0072-¶0073, ¶0091 – bridge service can obtain data from collaboration tools to insert into the video conferencing interface. See also, ¶0030-¶0032, ¶0091, ¶0108, ¶0127 – screen sharing and document sharing of the third-party interface streamed by users during the session),
wherein the third-party content obtained from the video conferencing application is obtained by the server by performing one or more application programming interface calls to the video conferencing application, obtaining one or more responses from the video conferencing application, and updating the values
detecting an occurrence of a first trigger event, wherein the first trigger event is associated with automation information that specifies a first set of automated actions to carry out within the collaboration environment in response to the first trigger event derived from the third-party content of the video conference application displayed within the user interface of the collaboration environment in the same video conferencing layout as the video conferencing layout of the third-party user interface of the video conferencing application (Gupta, Fig. 7B with ¶0074, ¶0146-¶0148, ¶0139, ¶0144 ¶0151-¶0152 – issue data is tracked based on changes or lack of change to the tracked data. Bot responses based on prompts within the chat interface result in providing information directly in the current meeting. See Fig. 7B showing the Bot response. Graphical summaries are triggered based on changes to tracked issues. Dashboard link is displayed within the chat log of the video conference);
and responsive to the detection of the occurrence of the first trigger event, effectuating the first set of automated actions within the collaboration environment (Gupta, ¶0074, ¶0146-¶0148 – issue data is tracked based on changes or lack of change to the tracked data. Graphical summaries are triggered based on changes to tracked issues. See also ¶0151-¶0152).
However, Gupta appears not to expressly disclose the limitations in strikethrough above. However, in the same field of endeavor, Greenblatt discloses a calendar system (Greenblatt, Abstract), including
the third-party content records corresponding to third party content embedded within the collaboration environment and storing values of embedded content parameters, the embedded content parameters characterizing the third-party content embedded within the collaboration environment (Greenblatt, Figs. 3B, 7C-7H with ¶0034, ¶0042-¶0043, ¶0076, ¶0133, ¶0163-¶0213 – web-based calendar view layout of the third party calendar, including a view layout for inputs to the calendar as well as a view layout of the user’s other calendar events. Fig. 1 with ¶0030-¶0034 – calendar server system is separate and distinct from the client and web hosting servers. Fig. 4 with ¶0038-¶0043, ¶0078, ¶0174 – calendaring server system includes records for calendar entries including parameters such a start and end times, attendees, etc.).
update, by the server, the values of the embedded content parameters based on the layout and wherein the user interface presents the values of the embedded content parameters so that the third-party content obtained is displayed within the user interface (Greenblatt, ¶0043 – display of an editable electronic calendar entry form. Figs. 7C-7H with ¶0134-0137 – the user’s agenda near the time of the event affects the layout of the embedded calendar content. Edits or updates to the calendar invoke a corresponding update to the display of the user’s agenda. See also ¶0163-¶0172 – the interface displays agenda items near the time of the event).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the calendar of Gupta to include embedded calendar parameters of a third-party calendar interface based on the teachings of Greenblatt. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable more efficient calendar entry creation and compatibility with a variety of calendaring systems (Greenblatt, ¶0029-¶0039).
Regarding claim 12, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above and further discloses wherein the third-party resources further include a calendar application, and wherein the method further comprises: obtaining, by the server and from the calendar application, second information characterizing a calendar view layout of a second third-party user interface of the calendar application; and updating, by the server, the values of the embedded content parameters based on the second information (Greenblatt, Figs. 3B, 7C-7H with ¶0034, ¶0042-¶0043, ¶0076, ¶0133, ¶0163-¶0213 – web-based calendar view layout of the third party calendar, including a view layout for inputs to the calendar as well as a view layout of the user’s other calendar events. Fig. 1 with ¶0032-¶0034 – calendar server system).
Regarding claim 14, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above and further discloses wherein an automated action is defined by a target component and an action component, the target component identifies an environment parameter to which an action is to be carried out with, and the action component defines instructions to effectuate the action with respect to the environment parameter (Gupta, ¶0051-¶0062 – command, target user, and task are input to track a task).
Regarding claim 15, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above and further discloses wherein the first trigger event is defined by a source component and an event component, the source component identifies an embedded content parameter from which occurrences of the first trigger event are derived, and the event component defines a state of the embedded content parameter dictating the occurrences of the first trigger event (Gupta, ¶0074, ¶0146-¶0148 – issue data is tracked based on changes or lack of change to the tracked data. Graphical summaries are triggered based on changes to tracked issues. See also ¶0151-¶0152. For example, a source component can refer to a status field and the state of the parameter can refer to a state such as “closed” or “active”).
Regarding claim 16, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 15 above and further discloses wherein the state of the embedded content parameter dictating the occurrences of the first trigger event includes a change of a value of the embedded content parameter, such that the first trigger event is associated with the change (Gupta, ¶0051-¶0062 – command, target user, and task are input to track a task. ¶0074, ¶0146-¶0148 – issue data is tracked based on changes or lack of change to the tracked data. Graphical summaries are triggered based on changes to tracked issues. See also ¶0151-¶0152).
Regarding claim 17, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 15 above and further discloses wherein the state of the embedded content parameter dictating the occurrences of the first trigger event includes a specific value of the embedded content parameter, such that the first trigger event is associated with the specific value (Gupta, ¶0051-¶0062 – command, target user, and task are input to track a task. ¶0074, ¶0146-¶0148 – issue data is tracked based on changes or lack of change to the tracked data. Graphical summaries are triggered based on change or lack of change to tracked issues. See also ¶0151-¶0152).
Regarding claim 18, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the automation information further specifies one or more trigger events are derived from one or more of the values of the environment parameters (Gupta, ¶0051-¶0062 – command, target user, and task are input to track a task. ¶0074, ¶0146-¶0148 – issue data is tracked based on changes or lack of change to the tracked data. Graphical summaries are triggered based on change or lack of change to tracked issues. See also ¶0151-¶0152. For example, an environment parameter can be a user invitee/project/task correlated with a particular status).
Regarding claim 19, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 11 above and further discloses wherein the third-party resources further include one or more of a payment application, a social media application, a customer relationship management application, a ticketing application, a partner relationship management application, or a web form application (Gupta, Fig. 7 with ¶0028 – social media applications such as chat, discussion, and conferencing platforms. ¶0031-¶0032, ¶0051 – management of task relationship between team-members (partners). ¶0108-¶0109 – ticket management application).
Regarding claim 20, Gupta as modified discloses the elements of claim 19 above and further discloses wherein the third-party resources includes the web form application or the payment application (Greenblatt, Figs. 3B, 7C-7H with ¶0034, ¶0043, ¶0076, ¶0133, ¶0163-¶0213 – web-based calendar entry form includes form fields).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the calendar of Gupta to include a web form application based on the teachings of Greenblatt. The motivation for doing so would have been to enable more efficient calendar entry creation and compatibility with a variety of calendaring systems (Greenblatt, ¶0029-¶0039).
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 DANIEL W PARCHER whose telephone number is (303)297-4281. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm, Mountain Time.
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, William Bashore can be reached at (571)272-4088 (Eastern Time). 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.
/DANIEL W PARCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2174
Prosecution Insights