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 . The following is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) or Pre-AIA , 112 2nd Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 and 18 recite “the defined selection criteria” and refer back to Claims 7 and 17, respectively, and Claims 1 and 11, respectively – both of which recite “defined selection criteria.” It is unclear whether “the defined selection criteria” refers to the recitation in Claims 7 and 17 or Claims 1 and 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Here, the claims do not merely recite the concept of scheduling a meeting in the abstract; instead, they implement a specific improved network-based system for real-time scheduling among matched users, which is a practical application rooted in computer technology.
Citing DDR, Applicant argues, “The claimed solution uses specific computer interactions (e.g., sending a single invitation to multiple match candidates, automated tracking of responses, and a coordinated meeting interface) that are "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks". For example, unlike generic scheduling, the claimed invention dynamically handles multiple parallel invitees and uses an interactive "meeting manager interface" on distributed devices only upon certain conditions (e.g., acceptance by one user and confirmation by the organizer). This is a tailored computer-network solution, not an attempt to monopolize the idea of scheduling meetings per se.”
Examiner responds unlike the claims of DDR Holdings, which were identified as patent-eligible because “the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” the pending claims do not address any technical problem or any problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Instead these claims address business problems associated with meeting management. Each of the additional elements are recited with high generality and generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The transmissions to devices are mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide a practical application to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “meeting manager interface including a selectable option for an indicating an expected time of arrival at the proposed location and is provided only after the first user confirms a selected second user for the meeting” is directed to basic functions of display technology and do not improving the functioning of the display nor the technical field of visualization, and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant cites McRo and argues, “Here, the computer-mediated scheduling process (with automatic invite broadcasting, location-based response handling, and selective confirmation) is not merely doing what humans have always done. Rather, it applies specific rules and interfaces (matching criteria, automated selection, etc.) to perform a task (scheduling/confirming meetings among strangers on a network) far more efficiently than the prior manual process. As in McRO, the claim is focused on a concrete improvement in computer-facilitated processes (real-time multi-party scheduling) rather than on a mere result or abstract idea.”
Examiner responds in McRo “ [i]t was the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that ‘improved [the] existing technological process’ by allowing the automation of further tasks...”. In the instant claims, the rules pertaining to the scheduling in the abstract idea are still a business process, and the technological limitations of transmitting to devices are mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide a practical application to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “meeting manager interface including a selectable option for an indicating an expected time of arrival at the proposed location and is provided only after the first user confirms a selected second user for the meeting” is directed to basic functions of display technology, and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant cites Bascom and argues, “Here, the ordered combination of claim elements - matching users,broadcasting a meeting proposal to multiple candidates, receiving acceptances with location selections, automatically selecting one responder or requiring a confirmation step, and only then providing a dedicated meeting-management interface - is a specific, non-conventional sequencing of operations. This arrangement achieves a new functionality not found in generic calendars or human scheduling (e.g., eliminating back-and-forth messages by automatically handling parallel invites and confirmations in real-time). It represents a "technology-based solution (not an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic components in aconventional way)", much like the invention in Bascom ; Thus, even under Step 2B, theclaims recite significantly more than any purported abstract idea“
Examiner responds the inventive concept described and claimed in Bascom is the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. This design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” Contrary to this decision, the instant application’s claims merely recite generic computer elements by which the steps are executed, there is not a non-conventional arrangement of the computer elements, but instead a generic computer and networked environment merely applies the abstract idea. As stated above the transmitting to devices are generic transmissions of data which do not provide a practical application to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “meeting manager interface including a selectable option for an indicating an expected time of arrival at the proposed location and is provided only after the first user confirms a selected second user for the meeting” are basic functions of display technology that only generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h). While Appellants might have improved a business process/algorithm for managing meetings, this improvement does not necessarily provide non-generic/non-conventional combination of elements.
Applicant argues, “determining a plurality of second users who are matched with the first user based on a user matching process” requires a specific compatibility algorithm.
Examiner responds “user matching process” is broadly recited, does not require a specific algorithm and under BRI is interpreted as Olliphant’s user selecting users in Figure 7C, 0062 to schedule appointments with.
Applicant argues, “transmitting, to second computing devices associated with the plurality of second users, a meeting invitation containing the proposed location information” requires an intention of only one user joining.
Examiner responds this limitation does not preclude more than one invitee attending. 0085 - ... the appointment server system receives a reply from at least a one of the participants that is an acceptance of the appointment (e.g., “I will attend the appointment”)... If the appointment server system has (452) received a predefined threshold (e.g., a sufficient number or sufficient percentage) of acceptances to confirm the meeting (defined selection criteria), then in some embodiments the appointment server system sends (454) an electronic message (e.g., an email or SMS) to each of the plurality of participants including a confirmation of the first proposed appointment. (selecting one of the second users)
Applicant argues, “selecting one of the second users in response to a plurality of second users accepting the meeting invitation, the selecting being performed in accordance with defined selection criteria and optionally based on a confirmation input by the first user” requires selecting “only one” of the second users.
Examiner responds under BRI- “selecting one of the users...in accordance with defined selection criteria” can be interpreted as selecting a user for a confirmation message in response to a threshold number of acceptances 0085 - ... the appointment server system receives a reply from at least a one of the participants that is an acceptance of the appointment (e.g., “I will attend the appointment”)... If the appointment server system has (452) received a predefined threshold (e.g., a sufficient number or sufficient percentage) of acceptances to confirm the meeting (defined selection criteria), then in some embodiments the appointment server system sends (454) an electronic message (e.g., an email or SMS) to each of the plurality of participants including a confirmation of the first proposed appointment. (selecting one of the second users)
Applicant argues, “meeting manager interface...provided on each device... only upon certain conditions (e.g. after confirmation)” requires a meeting being solidified.
Examiner responds under BRI an invitation may be provided on each device based on a user confirming which contacts to schedule with (Figure 7C, 0062).
Olliphant does not explicitly state the invitation is a “meeting manager interface” Theisen in analogous art discloses a meeting manager interface for providing meeting updates (Figure 5-6 – meeting manager interface with selectable buttons (ie. Still on Time, Running. Minutes Ahead, Running Minutes Behind) for attendees after existing event was created) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Theisen’s meeting manager interface and updates to Olliphant’s invitation, allowing “confirming and reconfirming specific meeting times between two or more meeting attendees in immediate, real time....allowing meeting attendees to re-confirm and specify whether the agreed calendar event time is correct and withstanding (Abstract)
Applicant argues Olliphant and Theisen have no reason to be combined.
Examiner responds both manage meetings. Olliphant pertains to automatic scheduling, updating, and confirming of meetings. Theisen pertains to confirming and reconfirming specific meeting times between two or more meeting attendees in immediate, real time. As stated in the rejection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Theisen’s meeting manager interface and updates to Olliphant’s invitation, allowing “confirming and reconfirming specific meeting times between two or more meeting attendees “in immediate, real time”....allowing meeting attendees to re-confirm and specify whether the agreed calendar event time is correct and withstanding (Abstract)
Applicant argues even if combined the system would still not have the “invite many to get one” workflow.
Examiner responds as stated above, “selecting one of the users...in accordance with defined selection criteria” does not preclude selecting each user to receive a confirmation message in response to a threshold number of acceptances and more than one attending (0085)
Applicant argues Claim 5 requires an organizer confirmation after an invitee accepts.
Examiner responds based on BRI the organizer confirmation may be before the invitee accepts. (Olliphant, See Figure 7A-D – a user configuring automatic lunch scheduling on specific days, at specific locations with selected contacts)
Applicant argues Claim 6 requires choosing only one user.
Examiner responds under BRI multiple users may be chosen. (Figure 7C – selecting which contacts to schedule appointments with)
Applicant argues Claim 7 “selection criteria” is not taught.
Examiner responds under BRI- “selection criteria” is interpreted as a threshold number of acceptances and selection of each user for a message (0085)
Applicant argues Claim 8 requires “time of arrival”.
Examiner responds time of arrival is claimed in the alternative.
Applicant argues Claim 9 requires location sensor data.
Examiner responds in Claim 9 sensor data is not recited.
With respect to Claim 11 – See Rejection. Location criteria is interpreted as proximity. Selection a location under BRI is interpreted as accepting the meeting details without changing the location. The claim does not require proposing a location while accepting. The claim does not require selecting “only one” user for same reasons as Claim 1.
Frank and Wu are not combined.
Claim 12 - Wu discloses a location selection interface for an invitee (Figure 5D, 0109 – selecting "bad" or "good" for multiple locations)
Claim 13 – Olliphant’s Yelp or Google Local for restaurants discloses enabling search of a database storing venues (Figure 7B, 0062)
Claim 14 –A user’s current location (“x miles from you”) is detected in Figure 7B after a threshold was configured in Figure 7D
Claim 15 – the criteria is interpreted as proximity that is related to travel time in Figure 7B
For Claims 17-18 - under BRI- “selection criteria” is interpreted as a threshold number of acceptances and selection of each user for a message (0085) which relates to invitee’s ‘time of responding to an invitation’
For Claim 20 - Frank is able to track by location (0091, Figure 12 (current location) - The location column 1110 is a field (or set of fields) to show the status of meeting attendees and their likelihood of making the scheduled meeting.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 and 11 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 and 11 includes limitations for scheduling based on rules including:
Receiving proposed location information for a meeting
Determining a plurality of second users who are matched with the first user based on a user matching process
Transmitting a meeting invitation containing the proposed location information
Receiving a response indicating acceptance of the meeting invitation...
Selecting one of the second users in response to a plurality of second users accepting the meeting invitation...
Indicate identifies of the first user and one or more second users...
The elements above recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the identified elements recite an abstract idea relating to certain methods of organizing human activity because it relates to the fundamental economic practice of meeting management, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The receiving and determining limitations may also be considered Mental processes – because they can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). As a result, claim 1 and 11 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. Claims 2–10 and 12-20 for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1 and 11. Accordingly, Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1, and 11 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 and 11 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include first computing device, second computing device, meeting manager interface, automatic selection. The transmissions to devices are mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extrasolution activities which do not provide a practical application to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The “meeting manager interface including a selectable option for an indicating an expected time of arrival at the proposed location and is provided only after the first user confirms a selected second user for the meeting” is directed to basic functions of display technology and do not improving the functioning of the display nor the technical field of visualization, and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea.
Claims 2–10 and 12-20 include several additional elements beyond those recited with respect to independent 1 and 11.
Claim 12 “displaying” amounts to adding insignificant extrasolution activities to the judicial exception.
The remaining dependent claims do not include any additional elements beyond those with respect to Claims 1 and 11. As a result, Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 and 11 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 and 11 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements include memory, processor, computer readable storage medium, software, computer, instructions. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea.
The transmitting limitations are mere data gathering/data exchange and insignificant extra solution activities which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)); and these limitations are equivalent to receiving/transmitting data and are well-understood routine and conventional which do not provide significantly more to the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The “meeting manager interface including a selectable option for an indicating an expected time of arrival at the proposed location and is provided only after the first user confirms a selected second user for the meeting” generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 8 and 15 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 include additional elements beyond those recited with respect to independent 1 and 11. In Claim 12, the display functionality is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of 0042, which describes the additional element in such a manner as to indicate that the additional element is sufficiently well-known in the art. The remaining dependent claims do not include any additional elements beyond those with respect to Claims 1 and 11. As a result, Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olliphant (20100293029) in view of Theisen (20160247125).
Regarding Claim 1, Olliphant discloses:
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, via a first computing device associated with a first user, proposed
location information for a meeting; (Figure 7B, 7D – lunch appointment preferences for restaurants and miles thresholds)
determining a plurality of second users who are matched with the first user based on a user matching process; (Figure 7C-user contacts selected by the user to schedule appointments with)
transmitting, to second computing devices associated with the plurality of second users, a meeting invitation containing the proposed location information; [0038] An invitation generator module 228 for generating electronic messages including an invitation to one or more proposed appointments(s). In some embodiments the invitation generator module 228 includes one or more of the following modules: .... a map module 234 for providing directions from the location of a user to the location of the appointment.
0081- In some embodiments this travel time is included in the invitation (e.g., "travel time to your appointment location is 15 minutes"). In some embodiments, driving directions are included along with the travel time. In some embodiments a map is included in the invitation.
receiving, via at least one of the second computing devices, a response indicating acceptance of the meeting invitation; wherein responses indicating acceptance are receivable from multiple second computing devices 0079 - In some embodiments, the meeting invitations clearly indicate the response deadline, and ask users to click a link so that they can accept, decline, or update the meeting;
0085 - "I will attend the appointment" (accepting the appointment details))
selecting one of the second users in response to a plurality of second users accepting the meeting invitation, the selecting being performed in accordance with defined selection criteria and optionally based on a confirmation input by the first user;
0085 - ... the appointment server system receives a reply from at least a one of the participants that is an acceptance of the appointment (e.g., “I will attend the appointment”)... If the appointment server system has (452) received a predefined threshold (e.g., a sufficient number or sufficient percentage) of acceptances to confirm the meeting (defined selection criteria), then in some embodiments the appointment server system sends (454) an electronic message (e.g., an email or SMS) to each of the plurality of participants including a confirmation of the first proposed appointment. (selecting one of the second users)
providing, on each of the first computing device and the at least one second computing device, a meeting invitation in connection with the meeting, the meeting invitation being configured to indicate identities of the first user and one or more second users associated with the at least one second computing device. (0079 - Finally, in embodiments where information is available, the meeting invitation will provide the mobile phone and other contact details of the attendees so that users can contact one another should issues arise (indicate identities))
wherein the “meeting invitation” includes a selectable option for indicating a proposed time at the proposed location and is provided only after the first user confirms a selected second user for the meeting. (0091- In some embodiments, if the reply indicates (460) an updated location, date or time, the appointment server system resets (462) the response status (e.g., “accept,” “reject,” “tentative” or “no reply” are all reset to “no reply”) for all participants other than the participant who sent the reply with the updated location, date or time, and resends the invitation to the other participants....User C proposes a new time for the appointment, and the appointment server system changes the appointment to a new time and sends out a revised invitation indicating the new time. (changing an appointment time changes a user’s proposed time);
Figure 7C, 0062 – a user confirming the contacts to schedule with (confirming a selected second user))
Olliphant does not explicitly state the invitation is a meeting manager interface nor the meeting manager interface includes a selectable option for indicating an expected time of arrival at the proposed location. Theisen in analogous art discloses this limitation (Figure 5-6 – meeting manager interface with selectable buttons (ie. Still on Time, Running. Minutes Ahead, Running Minutes Behind) for attendees after existing event was created) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Theisen’s meeting manager interface and expected time of arrival to Olliphant’s invitation, allowing “confirming and reconfirming specific meeting times between two or more meeting attendees in immediate, real time....allowing meeting attendees to re-confirm and specify whether the agreed calendar event time is correct and withstanding (Abstract)
Regarding Claim 2, Olliphant discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, via the first computing device, first meeting criteria, wherein the meeting invitation includes an indication of the first meeting criteria. (Figure 7B – selecting proximity restaurant criteria; 0038, 0081- directions to the restaurant provided in the invitation)
Regarding Claim 3, Olliphant discloses: The method of claim 2, wherein the first meeting criteria relate to one or more of: travel time to the proposed location; preferred payment arrangement; or proposed meeting agenda. (Figure 7B – each restaurant proximity within certain distance (relates to travel time))
Regarding Claim 4, Olliphant discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to receiving the response indicating acceptance of the meeting invitation, providing, on the first computing device, a notification of the response. (0085 - If the appointment server system has (452) received a predefined threshold (e.g., a sufficient number or sufficient percentage) of acceptances to confirm the meeting, then in some embodiments the appointment server system sends (454) an electronic message (e.g., an email or SMS) to each of the plurality of participants including a confirmation of the first proposed appointment.)
Regarding Claim 5, Olliphant discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, via the first computing device, confirmation of the meeting by the first user, wherein the meeting invitation is provided on each of the first computing device and the at least one second computing device responsive to receiving the confirmation. (Figure 7A-D – a user configuring automatic lunch scheduling on specific days, at specific locations with selected contacts; Abstract - invitation sent to all users)
Regarding Claim 6, Olliphant discloses: The method of claim 5, wherein the confirmation of the meeting comprises a selection, by the first user, from a list enumerating the plurality of second users. (Figure 7C – selecting which contacts to schedule appointments with)
Regarding Claim 7, Olliphant discloses: The method of claim 1, wherein the response indicating acceptance of the meeting invitation is received from a plurality of second computing devices and wherein providing the meeting invitation comprises selecting one of the second computing devices in accordance with defined selection criteria. (0079 - In some embodiments, the meeting invitations clearly indicate the response deadline, and ask users to click a link so that they can accept, decline, or update the meeting;
0085 - "I will attend the appointment" (accepting the appointment details)
Figure 7C – user configuring which contacts will be invited to meeting (selection criteria))
Regarding Claim 8, Olliphant discloses The method of claim 7, wherein the defined selection criteria relate to one or more of: proximity to the proposed location; time of arrival at the proposed location; time of responding to the meeting invitation; or subscription status of the second users. (“the defined selection criteria” could be referring to Claim 1 or Claim 7; Examiner interprets as Claim 1; 0085 - If the appointment server system has (452) received a predefined threshold (e.g., a sufficient number or sufficient percentage) of acceptances to confirm the meeting (selection criteria) (relates to invitee’s time of responding to invitation))
Regarding Claim 9, Olliphant discloses: 9. The method of claim 1. Olliphant does not explicitly state: Theisen discloses: wherein the meeting manager interface includes a selectable option for indicating an expected time of arrival at the proposed location. (Figure 6 - Still on Time, Running. Minutes Ahead, Running Minutes Behind) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Theisen’s meeting manager interface with selectable option to Olliphant’s invitation, allowing “confirming and reconfirming specific meeting times between two or more meeting attendees in immediate, real time....allowing meeting attendees to re-confirm and specify whether the agreed calendar event time is correct and withstanding (Abstract)
Regarding Claim 11, Olliphant discloses A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, via a first computing device associated with a first user, a proposed time for a meeting and location criteria; (Figure 7B, 7D – lunch appointment and location proximity for restaurants)
determining a plurality of second users who are matched with the first user based on a user matching process; (Figure 7C-user contacts selected by the user to schedule appointments with)
transmitting, to second computing devices associated with the plurality of second users, a meeting invitation indicating the proposed time and the location criteria; (0081(bottom) - travel time is included in the invitation (e.g., “travel time to your appointment location is 15 minutes”) (proximity); 0092(bottom)- details of invitation include the time/date/location proximity)
receiving, via at least one of the second computing devices, a response indicating acceptance of the meeting invitation, the response including selection of a first location that satisfies the location criteria wherein responses from multiple second computing devices are permitted and include selection of locations satisfying the criteria; (Under BRI –accepting the meeting without changing time/location is approving (ie. selecting) the proposed location (ie. locations satisfying the criteria)
0079 - In some embodiments, the meeting invitations clearly indicate the response deadline, and ask users to click a link so that they can accept, decline, or update the meeting;
0085 - "I will attend the appointment" (accepting the appointment details))
and providing, on each of the first computing device and the at least one second computing device, a meeting invitation in connection with the meeting, the meeting meeting invitation being configured to indicate identities of the first user and one or more second users associated with the at least one second computing device,
(0079 - Finally, in embodiments where information is available, the meeting invitation will provide the mobile phone and other contact details of the attendees so that users can contact one another should issues arise (indicate identities))
wherein if more than one second user provides an acceptance including a location selection, one second user is automatically selected according to predefined criteria or via first user confirmation, and the meeting invitation is provided only for the confirmed participants (Under BRI – “or via first user confirmation” is not occurring;
0085 - ... the appointment server system receives a reply from at least a one of the participants that is an acceptance of the appointment (e.g., “I will attend the appointment”)... If the appointment server system has (452) received a predefined threshold (e.g., a sufficient number or sufficient percentage) of acceptances to confirm the meeting (predefined criteria), then in some embodiments the appointment server system sends (454) an electronic message (e.g., an email or SMS) to each of the plurality of participants including a confirmation of the first proposed appointment. (selecting one of the second users)
Figure 7C, 0062 – user confirming users or a group of users (participants) to schedule with)
Olliphant does not explicitly state the invitation is a “meeting manager interface” Theisen in analogous art discloses this limitation (Figure 5-6 – meeting manager interface with buttons (ie. Still on Time, Running. Minutes Ahead, Running Minutes Behind)) managing meeting) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Theisen’s meeting manager interface to Olliphant’s invitation, allowing “confirming and reconfirming specific meeting times between two or more meeting attendees in immediate, real time....allowing meeting attendees to re-confirm and specify whether the agreed calendar event time is correct and withstanding (Abstract)
Regarding Claim 13, Olliphant discloses The method of claim 12, wherein the location selection interface enables search of a database storing location information for a plurality of venues. (0061, Figure 7B – Yelp or Google Local retrieves restaurants different miles from user)
Regarding Claim 14, Olliphant discloses The method of claim 11, wherein the location criteria include an indication of a maximum radius from a current location associated with the first user. (Figure 7D – miles threshold (maximum radius proximity); Figure 7B might also be considered a maximum radius based on which thumbs up selected)
Claim 15 stands rejected based on the same citations and rationale as Claims 2-3.
Claim 16, 17, 18, 19 stands rejected based on the same citations and rationale as Claim 5, 7, 8, and 9 respectively.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olliphant (20100293029) in view of Theisen (20160247125) in view of Frank (20070264969)
Regarding Claim 10, Olliphant discloses: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing, via the meeting invitation on the first computing device and the at least one second computing device, a prompt for confirmation of arrival status of the one or more second users and the first user, respectively; and determining meeting attendance status of the first user and the one or more second users based on the confirmations [0091] all users receiving new invitations when a reply changes appointment details; 0079 - ... the meeting invitations clearly indicate the response deadline, and ask users to click a link so that they can accept, decline, or update the meeting
Olliphant does not explicitly state: obtaining current location data associated with the first user and the one or more second users; and determining meeting attendance status of the first user and the one or more second users based on the current location data. Frank discloses this limitation (0091, Figure 12 (current location) - The location column 1110 is a field (or set of fields) to show the status of meeting attendees and their likelihood of making the scheduled meeting.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Frank’s current location data to Olliphant’s in view of Theisen’s meeting attendance status, helping show the “status of meeting attendees and their likelihood of making the scheduled meeting” (Figure 12, 0091)
Claim 20 stands rejected based on the same citations and rationale as applied to Claim 10.
Claims 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olliphant (20100293029) in view of Theisen (20160247125) in view of Wu (20070094065)
Regarding Claim 12, Olliphant discloses The method of claim 11, further comprising: providing, on the at least one first computing device, a location selection interface, wherein the location selection interface is configured to display one or more meeting locations that satisfy the location criteria and wherein the selection of the first location is received via the location selection interface. (Figure 7B – restaurants and miles away) Olliphant does not explicitly state the location selection interface is provided to at least one second computing device (ie. invitee) Wu discloses this limitation (Figure 5D, 0102, 0109 - [0102] FIG. 5D shows a user interface 540 for receiving, from a user (e.g., the initiator or an invitee), preference data including data pertaining to time, locations...
[0109] User interface 541 may be configured for receiving data pertaining to the user's opinion(s) regarding one or more locations suggested by possible participants for the activity, including the initiator and invitees invited by the initiator. User interface 541 may include radio buttons that enable the user to make a selection, for example, in a scale ranging from "bad" to "good", that represents the user's opinion regarding a location...) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Wu’s second computing device (invitee) to Olliphant’s in view of Theisen’s location interface, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. [AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
96
1187
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT ROSS whose telephone number is (571) 270-1555. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM E.S.T..
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, Rutao Wu, can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Scott Ross/
Examiner - Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623