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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed, 08 July 2026, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 08 December 2023 in which claims 1, 5, 11, 15 have been amended, claim 20 canceled and claim 51 has been added. Claims 1-19, 51 are pending in the application.
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, 5, 11, 15, 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson, III et al (hereinafter “Johnson”, 2023/0385778) in view of Strader et al (hereinafter “Strader”, 2024/0037942).
As per Claim 1, Johnson discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving an input to schedule a first virtual meeting, wherein the first virtual meeting is scheduled to include a first plurality of participants including a first participant associated with a first computing device of a first plurality of computing devices and a second participant associated with a second computing device of the first plurality of computing devices, the first and second computing devices being connected via a network to a server providing the first virtual meeting (at least paragraph 72; meeting intent is an intension to schedule a meeting in the future. The meeting may be a follow up to a current meeting. In addition to detecting the intention to meet, meeting parameters, such as participants, proposed meeting time and date, and meeting topic may be extracted);
receiving, prior to a start of the first virtual meeting, a particular document to be presented to the first plurality of participants during the first virtual meeting (at least paragraph 40; data sources 104a and 104b through 104n may store meeting content, such as files shared during the meeting, generated in response to a meeting (e.g., meeting notes or minutes), and/or shared in preparation for a meeting);
storing the particular document in a cloud storage associated with the first virtual meeting (at least paragraph 37, 40; Fig. 1-2; Storage 225; cloud computing environment; data source(s) 104a through 104n may be one or more of a database, a file, data structure, corpus, or other data store; par. 22 Content (e.g., meeting presentations, agendas, invites, notes, chats, transcripts) from related meeting may also be associated with a common identification, described herein as a meeting thread ID);
first metadata of the particular document, the first metadata comprising first virtual meeting communication data captured via at least one of the first plurality of computing devices while the particular document is being presented at the first virtual meeting (at least Fig. 3; par. 74; receives a document 307 and/or the audio data 305; audio may be from a video conference, teleconference, or a recording of an in-person meeting; par. 49 meetings being monitored may be virtual meetings that occur via teleconference, video conference, virtual reality; par. 54 contextual information may be metadata; par. 110: content associated with meeting if presented during meeting; par. 85: natural language utterance (and/or intent of such utterance), the ID of the speaking attendee, an application item associated with the meeting, an ID of the meeting, documents associated with the meeting, emails associated with the meeting, chats associated with the meeting, and/or other metadata; par. 69: presentation component 220 may determine on which user device(s) content is presented, as well as the context of the presentation, such as how (or in what format and how much content, which can be dependent on the user device or context) it is presented);
determining that a second virtual meeting is scheduled to occur during which the particular document is scheduled to be presented, the second virtual meeting including a second plurality of participants, wherein the second plurality of participants includes the first participant (at least paragraph 22, 27; Content (e.g., meeting presentations, agendas, invites, notes, chats, transcripts) from related meeting may also be associated with a common identification, described herein as a meeting thread ID. The association could be direct, such as by associating the thread ID as metadata to a content. The association could be indirect using an index, or other data store, that associates a content ID with a meeting thread ID; a meeting relationship is formed when a second meeting is described in content related to a first meeting. The content for the first meeting may be a transcript of utterances made in the first meeting. The content could also be meeting notes (e.g., minutes) for the first meeting. The description may be an expressed intent to conduct the second meeting. The second meeting may already be scheduled or yet to be scheduled);
second metadata file of the particular document, the second metadata comprising second virtual meeting communication data captured via at least one of the second plurality of computing devices while the particular document is being presented at the second virtual meeting (at least Fig. 3; par. 74; receives a document 307 and/or the audio data 305; audio may be from a video conference, teleconference, or a recording of an in-person meeting; par. 49: meetings being monitored may be virtual meetings that occur via teleconference, video conference, virtual reality; par. 54 contextual information may be metadata; par. 110: content associated with meeting if presented during meeting; par. 85: natural language utterance (and/or intent of such utterance), the ID of the speaking attendee, an application item associated with the meeting, an ID of the meeting, documents associated with the meeting, emails associated with the meeting, chats associated with the meeting, and/or other metadata; par. 69: presentation component 220 may determine on which user device(s) content is presented, as well as the context of the presentation, such as how (or in what format and how much content, which can be dependent on the user device or context) it is presented); and
causing display, at the first computing device:
a first option to access, via the first metadata file embedded within the particular document that is stored at the cloud storage, the first virtual meeting communication data captured while the particular document was presented during the first virtual meeting (at least Fig. 7; Par. 102-106, 21; meeting tree 720 may enable viewers to access meeting details by selecting one of the meeting visualizations. In this example, meeting details 709 are shown for meeting I 708. The meeting details include a meeting thread ID, meeting date, attendee list, link to a meeting transcript, link to meeting content); and
a second option to access, via the second metadata file embedded within the particular document that is stored at the cloud storage, the second virtual meeting communication data captured while the particular document was presented during the second virtual meeting (at least Fig. 7; Par. 102-106, 21; meeting tree 720 may enable viewers to access meeting details by selecting one of the meeting visualizations. In this example, meeting details 709 are shown for meeting I 708. The meeting details include a meeting thread ID, meeting date, attendee list, link to a meeting transcript, link to meeting content).
Johnson fails to explicitly disclose embedding the first/second metadata as a file within the first document. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Strader. Strader discloses, in an analogous video meeting art, during a meeting a document is presented and the document having portion IDs associated with portions of the document as they are presented, such that a video recording of the presentation stores, as metadata of the presentation, extracted signals/metadata from an audio portion and text transcription thereof, corresponding to a video segment during which a document portion ID appeared (at least Strader paragraph 22, 45, 90, 93). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Strader’s document metadata associated with document portions with Johnson as Strader teaches this allows the document to be analyzed for future meetings more easily and precisely to allow the future presenter to know exactly which document portion is being discussed and needs further review to present the document better in the future and the metadata associated with the recorded video is well known and can be used separately without altering the actual presentation and being viewable by the audience.
As per Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the first virtual meeting communication data comprises first audio data, the method further comprising: during presentation of the particular document during the first virtual meeting, transcribing the first audio data captured via the at least one of the first plurality of computing devices; identifying, in the transcribed first audio data, a comment associated with a first portion of the particular document; and storing, as part of the first metadata file, the comment associated with the first portion of the particular document (at least Strader paragraph 22, 45, 90, 93; during a meeting a document is presented and the document having portion IDs associated with portions of the document as they are presented, such that a video recording of the presentation stores, as metadata of the presentation, extracted signals/metadata from an audio portion and text transcription thereof, corresponding to a video segment during which a document portion ID appeared).
As per Claim 51. The method of claim 1, wherein the first virtual meeting communication data comprises first audio data, the method further comprising:
during presentation of the particular document during the first virtual meeting, transcribing the first audio data captured via the at least one of the first plurality of computing devices;
identifying, in the transcribed first audio data, a comment associated with a first portion of the particular document; and
embedding the comment within the particular document at the location corresponding to the first portion (at least Strader paragraph 22, 45, 90, 93; during a meeting a document is presented and the document having portion IDs associated with portions of the document as they are presented, such that a video recording of the presentation stores, as metadata of the presentation, extracted signals/metadata from an audio portion and text transcription thereof, corresponding to a video segment during which a document portion ID appeared).
Claims 11, 15 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 1, 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra. Claims 11, 15 are corresponding system claims to method claims 1, 5.
Claim(s) 2-3, 10, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Strader, further in view of Weiss et al (hereinafter “Weiss”, 2023/0244857).
As per Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning permissions associated with the particular document for the first plurality of participants based on a status of each of the first plurality of participants with respect to the first virtual meeting (at least Johnson paragraph 59; eg. participant role). Johnson/Strader fails to explicitly disclose wherein the permissions permit access to control presentation of the particular document during the first virtual meeting; and during the first virtual meeting: receiving a request to present the particular document from the first participant; and in response to determining that a first permission corresponding to the first participant permits the first participant to control presentation of the document: accessing the particular document stored in the cloud storage; and providing the particular document for display on each computing device of the first plurality of participants.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Weiss. Weiss discloses, in an analogous art, a meeting platform wherein users are given permissions in order to view or edit documents that are presented in the meeting (at least paragraph 96-97, 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Weiss’ permissions with Johnson/Strader as permissions are very well known in the art for documents and meetings, including a host of the meeting having the permission to host the document being presented and granting other attendees permission to participate, for example, and Weiss discloses that a document can be collaborative for multiple users to view or edit the document, yet limiting others or anyone from being able to edit the document, thereby providing document security.
As per Claim 10. Johnson/Strader fails to explicitly disclose determining a meeting permission for a user based on whether the user was a participant of the first virtual meeting or a participant of the second virtual meeting; and based on the meeting permission for the user, enabling the user to access either the first virtual meeting communication data or the second virtual meeting communication data associated with the document.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Weiss. Weiss discloses, in an analogous art, a meeting platform wherein users are given permissions in order to view or edit documents that are presented in the meeting and allowing meeting attendees permissions to view a meeting file (recording of the meeting) the attendees are associated with (at least paragraph 66, 96-97, 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Weiss’ permissions with Johnson as permissions are very well known in the art for documents and meetings, including a host of the meeting having the permission to host the document being presented and granting other attendees permission to participate, for example, and Weiss discloses that attendees of a meeting can be granted permission by the host to watch the meeting later, a well known benefit, particularly for a meeting that may be modified or enhanced with new information.
Claim 12 does not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 2, 10 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra.
As per Claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the first virtual meeting is scheduled to include at least three participants (at least Fig. 5; P1-P5 participants of meeting A). Johnson fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first participant is a host of the first virtual meeting and the second participant is an author of the particular document, the method further comprising: assigning, to the host of the first virtual meeting, permission to control presentation of the particular document during the first virtual meeting; assigning, to the author of the particular document, permission to control presentation of the particular document during the first virtual meeting; and assigning, to all other participants, permissions that prevent control of the presentation of the particular document during the first virtual meeting.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Weiss. Weiss discloses, in an analogous art, a meeting platform wherein users are given permissions in order to view or edit documents that are presented in the meeting (at least paragraph 96-97, 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Weiss’ permissions with Johnson as permissions are very well known in the art for documents and meetings, including a host of the meeting having the permission to host the document being presented and granting other attendees permission to participate, for example, and Weiss discloses that a document can be collaborative for multiple users to view or edit the document, yet limiting others or anyone from being able to edit the document, thereby providing document security.
Johnson and Weiss fail to explicitly disclose the second participant is an author of the particular document, assigning, to the author of the particular document, permission to control presentation of the particular document during the first virtual meeting.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Strader. Strader discloses, in an analogous video meeting art, users having roles such as a host being a presenter and a creator associated with a document in the meeting, wherein the user can present their own version of the document (at least paragraph 20, 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Strader’s document authoring/creating with Johnson and Weiss as this allows the creator of the document an obvious permission to modify the document associated with the document ID or create a new document ID for documents that are used and presented in meetings to be edited with the creator’s knowledge and input of the creator is available.
Claim 13 does not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claim 3 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons, supra.
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Strader, further in view of Kripalani et al (hereinafter “Kripalani”, 2009/0254839).
Johnson discloses wherein the first participant of the first virtual meeting is an author of the document (at least paragraph 22; meeting presentation and invite by participant), but Johnson/Strader fails to disclose the method further comprising: during the first virtual meeting: receiving a voice command from the author; and controlling presentation of the particular document based on the voice command. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Kripalani (at least paragraph 55, 38, 59). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Kripalani’s voice commands with Johnson/Strader, as Kripalani teaches this allows the conference host to easily remotely control slides of a meeting as they talk in a natural manner as if talking to a separate user that would manually control the slide navigation.
Claim 14 does not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claim 4 and therefore is rejected for similar reasons, supra.
Claim(s) 6-9, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Strader, further in view of Cunnington et al (hereinafter “Cunnington”, 2011/0295392).
As per Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first virtual meeting communication data comprises first audio data (at least Johnson paragraph 30, 74; audio). Johnson further teaches utterances being monitored during the meeting and making suggestions based on the utterances, the suggestion output to the meeting attendees for confirmation during the meeting (at least Johnson paragraph 99-101, 112). Johnson/Strader fails to disclose the method further comprising: during presentation of the particular document during the first virtual meeting: identifying, based on the first audio data captured via the at least one of the first plurality of computing devices, a suggestion to modify a portion of the particular document; generating for display a preview of the portion of the particular document including the recommended modification; and generating for display, a prompt requesting a selection to accept or reject the recommended modification.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Cunnington. Cunnington discloses, in an analogous art, as feedback during a meeting to a speaker, presenter, or moderator, the system may provide a suggestion to modify presentation content when the system has detected that meeting participants get confused at a particular slide or demonstration (at least Cunnington paragraph 31, 40; Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Cunnington’s suggestion with Johnson’s meeting suggestions being displayed as Cunnington teaches such feedback being used in future meetings would help prevent confusion for the presented document when presenting it in a future meeting.
As per Claim 7. The method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving an input selection to accept the recommended modification; and modifying the particular document in the cloud storage to include the recommended modification (at least Cunnington paragraph 31, 40; Fig. 5; getting feedback in real-time and modifying presentation to regain audience trust; Johnson affirmation/confirmation to suggestion in par. 105, 112).
As per Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the first virtual meeting communication data comprises first audio data, the method further comprising: during presentation of the particular document during the first virtual meeting, transcribing the first audio data captured via the at least one of the first plurality of computing devices (at least paragraph 110; content may be a transcript of the first meeting. The transcript may be generated by transcribing audio of the meeting. The audio may be recorded and transcribed by virtual meeting platforms).
Johnson discloses monitoring the meeting for spoken utterances wherein meeting intent and topics of discussion are determined and associated with another meeting (at least paragraph 99-101, 110, 116, 120). Johnson/Strader fails to explicitly disclose identifying one or more recommended modifications to the particular document included in the transcribed first audio data; generating a list of action items associated with the particular document, the action items based on the one or more recommended modifications included in the transcribed first audio data; and storing the list of action items associated with the particular document in the cloud storage.
However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Cunnington. Cunnington discloses, in an analogous art, as feedback during a meeting to a speaker, presenter, or moderator, the system may provide a suggestion to modify presentation content when the system has detected that meeting participants get confused at a particular slide or demonstration (at least Cunnington paragraph 31, 40; Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Cunnington’s suggestion with Johnson/Strader’s meeting suggestions being displayed as Cunnington teaches such feedback being used in future meetings would help prevent confusion for the presented document when presenting it in a future meeting.
As per Claim 9. The method of claim 8, wherein each of the action items in the list of action items is associated with a corresponding portion of the particular document, and wherein storing the list of action items associated with the particular document in the cloud storage comprises storing, in the cloud storage as third metadata associated with the particular document, the list of action items (at least Cunnington paragraph 31, 40; Fig. 5; eg. particular slide; Johnson par. 37: cloud).
Claims 16-19 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 6-9 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Strader discloses the limitation as amended and outlined above in the revised rejection and mapping of claim 1.
Conclusion
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 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/GREGORY TODD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights