Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 25 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Claims Recite A Judicial Exception Under Step 2A Prong One
Step 2A Prong One of the Alice/Mayo framework evaluates whether an abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. The Federal Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on an improvement to technology and/or a technical field. Applicant’s specification recites in [0012] “In a hybrid work environment, some users of electronic devices (e.g., employees, contractors, volunteers, and/or other types of workers at a business) may come into an office a few days every week and work from home on other days. Other users may permanently work from home or permanently work in the office. To communicate with one another without first identifying the locations of the other parties, the users may schedule or initiate online conferences. Sometimes, users may initiate online conferences with other users who are located close to themselves, even though there are other ways of communicating (e.g., meeting in person in a conference room) which may have advantages over online conferencing. Online conferencing may result in users who are proximate to one another (e.g., a few desks or cubicles apart) communicating with one another via online conference and disturbing other people who are sitting nearby, while themselves suffering from background noise (e.g., due to other conferences or conversations). To alleviate such problems, businesses have invested in conference rooms that provide quiet spaces for high-quality audio and video conferencing. However, the reservation process for these conference rooms may be cumbersome and may be impractical for ad hoc conferences. As set forth above, encouraging users to use conference rooms, particularly when two or more users who are participating in a conference are both in the office, may be desirable.” The claims considered in light of the specification clearly indicates their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter. The limitations of claim 1 (and parallel claims 8 and 15) further detail the steps to make the reservation process less cumbersome, as stated in the specification. The claims are drawn towards providing users with a conference room recommendation, and recite limitations that directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior, relationships), as evidenced by limitations related to determining that two or more users plan to access a conference from [separate user devices] located in separate areas of an office premises; determining, in response to the indication that the two of the [separate user devices] are within the audible distance of one another within the office premises, that one or more conference rooms within the office premises are available for use by the two or more users at a time of the conference; transmitting, to each of the separate user devices, a prompt recommending that the two or more users participate in the conference using a shared device, within the conference room; and transmitting, to the [shared device], a [control signal] causing the [shared device] to automatically connect to the conference at the time of the conference upon authentication of at least one of the two users. The identified limitations are limitations that a human would ordinarily perform when scheduling a conference (e.g., determining locations of participants, selecting a room based on conference configuration data, recommending users participating in the conference using a shared device, etc.), and automating the process via computer does not remove the claims from the certain methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. The claims are directly describe managing personal interactions, behavior, or relationships. Additionally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.
Additionally, the above-mentioned claim limitations, along with limitations detailing selecting a conference room of the one or more conference rooms based on stored conference configuration data associated with the conference or at least one of the two or more users, also recite limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The recited steps could be performed mentally (e.g., the determining steps, etc.). Automating the steps via computer does not take the claims out of the mental processes abstract idea grouping. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The question is the underlying nature of the step, not whether a human can literally replicate the computer’s exact step of, as applicant argues, “transmitting a control signal” and “causing a shared to device to automatically connect to a conference”. Besides, those steps fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity category since they directly correspond to organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior, relationships) in conducting a conference with participating users, even though the conference is conducted and the steps automated via computer, thus naturally causing the connecting to be done via computer. Furthermore, a human can indeed perform the steps of determining that user devices are connected to a particular network. The relevant inquiry under Step 2A Prong One is not whether a human can perform the claimed steps with the same speed, scale, or numerical precision as a computer, but whether the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind or as certain methods of organizing human activity, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Applicant’s “no human could do this” framing thus conflates the means of the steps with the character of the underlying step. Applicant’s argument that the steps of claim 1 are operations of a conferencing system involving a conferencing server, separate user devices, a shared device, network infrastructure, and a scheduling database, further proves that the claim amounts to “apply it” ore merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, and the computer components, which are “additional elements”, are properly evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, to determining whether these elements integration the judicial exception into a practical application and if the additional elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (which they do not). Applicant’s argument regarding the computer components used to implement the steps are misplaced under Step 2A Prong One.
For the reasons set firth above, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One of the Alice/Mayo framework.
The Additional Elements Do Not Integrate the Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application Under Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a conferencing server; separate user devices; a network router, switch, or port; a control signal; a shared device comprising a display, camera, speaker, and microphone; at least one non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 8), one or more processors (claims 8 and 15), memory hardware (claim 15), a conference room scheduling database. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Additionally, the control signal amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (conference/meeting access and scheduling). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant’s argument that claim 1 recites a technological improvement to how a conferencing system detects device co-location, coordinates room reservations, and automatically connects remote hardware to a conference is unpersuasive. At best, the alleged improvement is an improvement in the judicial exception itself, not an improvement in computers or technology. It is important to note that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. It is also important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (MPEP 2106.05(a)). For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. In the applicant’s invention, the additional elements amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use, but does not improve computers or technology. There is no evidence of an improvement in computers or technology. Automatically connecting a conference via computer control signal without additional human input, does not represent an improvement in computers or technology, but at best user convenience. This is also proven in the portion of the specification that applicant cites which states “conferencing server 406 may cause a shared device in the conference room to automatically (e.g., without additional human input) connect to the conference so that the users of the client’s 402 and 404 may have an easy and seamless experience in connecting to the conference from the conference room.” An easy and seamless user experience is not an improvement in computers or technology, but an improvement the business process or steps that correspond to the judicial exception; an improvement in the judicial exception itself. Technical improvements to computers or computer functionality focuses on enhancing the tools, software, or machinery, while business process improvement focuses on streamlining the steps, workflows, and methodologies people use to do their work. Applicant’s claims fall in the latter. Applicant presents no evidence showing an improvement to computer operations or functionality. The computers utilized in the applicant’s invention and claims are performing standard computer processing operations: collecting, analyzing/processing, connecting to devices, and outputting data. The computer is merely invoked as a tool to implement the judicial exception.
Applicant further argues that their claim(s) are similar to that of example 42 in the 2019 PEG Guidance. Examiner disagrees. In example 42, patient information is input in any format used by a user’s local device and whenever the patient information is updated, the information is first converted into a standardized format and stored. A message containing the updated information is transmitted in a standardized format over the computer network to all physicians and healthcare providers that have access to the patient’s information so that all users can be notified of changes without having to manually consolidate all of the updates. Under Step 2A Prong Two, the claim in example 42 is integrated into a practical application due to reciting the additional elements of converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users. The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Applicant’s claims are in no way similar to example 42. The reason applicant presents as to why that their claims are analogous to example 42 are severely flawed. Applicant alleges that the improvement in example 42 arises from “the combination of distributed elements coordinating in a specific manner”, and the result is a specific improvement over prior art systems. This argument is invalid and ignores the actual technical improvement that is presented in example 42, which is presented by the examiner in the beginning of this paragraph. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The Claims Do Not Include Additional Elements That Are Sufficient To Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception Under Step 2B.
Under Step 2B, applicant argues that the additional elements recited in claim 1 amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements recite non-conventional, computer-implemented operations that go well beyond mere data analysis or meeting scheduling. Examiner disagrees. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (conference/meeting access and scheduling). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Additionally, as discussed above, there is not an improvement to computers or computer functionality, but instead at best an improvement to the judicial exception itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to disclose the amended limitation that the indication (that two of the separate users are in audible distance) is based on a network switch, network router, or network port to which the two of the separate user devices are connected within the office premises. Examiner disagrees. To start, it is noted that Hapse in view of Xi already discloses determining that the users determining, by a conferencing server, that two or more users plan to access a conference from separate user devices located in separate areas of an office premises based on data comprising an indication that two of the separate user devices are within an audible distance of one another within the office premises. Chanda, which was also previously used in the rejection of claim 1, recites the amended limitation at issue here:
Chanda ¶0057 discloses the devices 102 are each in communication with the collaboration server 107 via a network 104; the network 104 can include all forms of networking components, such as LANs, WANs, routers, switches, WiFi components, cellular components, wired and optical components, and the internet; in one scenario two or more of the users 101 are located in the same room, and their devices 102 communicate via WiFi with the collaboration server 107 (NOTE: that this is merely an example using WiFi components (which may also include a router) and the paragraph states that all forms of network components including routers and switches may be used); in another scenario the users are separated from each other and communicate with the collaboration server via the internet; thus this paragraph indicates that the network can include all forms of networking components including routers, switches, and other components (e.g., Wi-Fi components which may also be a router), to which the devices are connected and a location is determined for the devices, such as if the devices are located in the same room (which is an audible distance) as indicated in the paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hapse in view of Xi to include that the indication (that two of the separate users are within audible distance of one another) is based on a network switch, network router, or network port to which the two of the separate user devices are connected within the office premises as taught by Chanda. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hapse in view of Xi in order to determine the locations of the users via their devices (see ¶0057 of Chanda).
Further, Applicant’s argument that Chanda requires user-driven actions, such as entering display identification codes, to initiate collaboration and thus Chanda does not describe transmitting a control signal comprising connection data that causes a shared device to use the connection data to automatically connect to a conference, is unpersuasive. Chanda discloses this limitation as well:
(Chanda ¶0026 disclosing a collaboration environment in which users can participate in an interactive collaboration from the same meeting room; the technology disclosed in the reference addresses the problem of authenticating a user by providing access to…a shared digital workspace (also referred to as a workspace or a digital asset), and providing a user with the ability to access and/or share a workspace and/or participate in a collaboration on their own device (e.g., a handheld tablet) while, for example, the collaboration is active on other devices as well (e.g., a display wall in a meeting room); ¶0028 the meeting can also identify one or more meeting rooms for the collaboration and assign other resources for the meeting such as one or more digital displays located in the meeting rooms; ¶0032 disclosing the collaboration server can detect an input from a user via the communication module to identify a shared digital workspace (such as a workspace) for which the user is authorized to access; collaboration server can also detect the input from a user identifying one or more requested display identification codes (DICs) (connection data). The collaboration server then determines if the requested display identification code (DIC) input by the user matches to the DIC sent to the display client. In response to the match, the collaboration server starts a collaboration by providing access to the display client to shared digital workspace to via the smart dongle (smart dongle gives the control signal for connection); ¶0031 also discloses the smart dongle includes logic to provide a display identification code (DIC) to the display client for display of the DIC. In one embodiment, the collaboration server sends a display identification code (DIC) to the smart dongle which then sends the received DIC to the display client for display; ¶0036 further discloses the technology disclosed can use information collected from meeting scheduling systems to only allow the users who are participants of a meeting to join the collaboration meeting and use hardware resources; e.g., when an authenticated user attempts to download a workspace to a digital display wall in a meeting room, the collaboration server 107 allows the user to share or download the workspace to the digital display wall if the user is participant of the current scheduled meeting in the room in which the digital wall is placed. If a user is attempting to download the workspace to the digital display wall before the meeting start time, the system can deny this request and display a message to the user with the meeting time at which she can start using the hardware devices in the meeting room; see Fig. 2 disclosing the display wall where multiple participants have access to the shared device (¶0026 also discloses that the participants joining the conference or meeting using digital displays such as the display wall, desktop and laptop computers, etc., and the display wall being a device); ¶0048 technology disclosed can gather the “user” (or a participant) data from scheduling systems 105. In one embodiment, the user information is stored as part of the display mappings database 108. In another embodiment, the user information can be stored as a separate user database. In such an embodiment, the records in the user data database can be linked to the entries in the display mappings database 108 and event map stack database 109. The user data can include information such as name of the user, a user identifier, login credentials, etc. (also connection data); collaboration server can use the credentials to identify the user in dependence upon the detected input from the user prior to the start of the collaboration. If the credentials entered by the user match the credentials stored in the user database, the system allows the user to start the collaboration. Otherwise, the system can restrict user's access to the shared digital workspace (also referred to as workspace) in dependence upon authorization information associated with the identity of the user or with the shared digital workspace; ¶0060 disclosing three users attending a meeting collaboration rom 205 using the digital display wall (shared device) in the meeting room; ¶0068 also disclosing the collaboration server 107 detects the input from the user including one or more display identification codes (DICs). In this example, the user enters the display identification codes "12345", "35791", and "24680" (connection data) and the collaboration server 107 receives, via the communication module, information identifying the selections of the user as well as information identifying the user and/or the mobile phone 102. The collaboration server 107 determines that a match exists when a DIC identified by the input from the user matches the DIC sent to the display client; If a match is determined to exist, then the collaboration server 107 starts a collaboration (e.g., a collaboration session) by providing access to the shared digital workspace; ¶0069 a smart dongle 111 can be connected to display 102d. This smart dongle 111 includes hardware and software capable of (i) communicating with the collaboration server 107 to obtain the DIC, (ii) communicating with the display 102d to provide the DIC for display and to also provide and (iii) communicating with the collaboration server 107 and the display 102d to gain access to the shared digital workspace and provide the shared digital workspace to the display). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hapse in view of Xi to include transmitting, by the conferencing server to the shared device, a control signal comprising connection data for connecting to the conference, the control signal causing the shared device to use the connection data to automatically connect to the conference at the time of the conference upon authentication of at least one of the two or more users as taught by Chanda. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hapse in view of Xi in order provide a system that can more effectively and automatically manage user authorization, content sharing, and access to digital display walls in a collaboration system so that shared digital content (e.g., a shared digital workspace) is efficiently distributed to meeting participants and only participants of a meeting can access digital display walls during a scheduled meeting (see ¶0004 of Chanda).
Applicant’s attempt to reframe Chanda’s mentioning of a user entering data that is verified by the server to initiate an automatic connection is unavailing. Chanda’s teaching is not meaningfully different that applicant’s and Chanda directly reads on the applicant’s claim limitation(s). In Chanda, the user’s credentials constitute the mechanism by which the connection is authorized, and the credentials are verified by the server prior to automatically connecting. The connection is still automatic. Chanda discloses that the collaboration server determines if the requested display identification code (DIC) input by the user matches to the DIC sent to the display client. In response to the match, the collaboration server starts a collaboration by providing access to the display client to shared digital workspace to via the smart dongle (smart dongle gives the control signal for connection). Further in ¶0068, Chanda discloses the collaboration server 107 determines that a match exists when a DIC identified by the input from the user matches the DIC sent to the display client. If a match is determined to exist, then the collaboration server 107 starts a collaboration (e.g., a collaboration session) by providing access to the shared digital workspace. In ¶0069 Chanda discloses that a smart dongle 111 can be connected to display 102d. This smart dongle 111 includes hardware and software capable of (i) communicating with the collaboration server 107 to obtain the DIC, (ii) communicating with the display 102d to provide the DIC for display and to also provide and (iii) communicating with the collaboration server 107 and the display 102d to gain access to the shared digital workspace and provide the shared digital workspace to the display). Applicant had not explained how using credentials as a proxy for authentication differs in kind from the claimed “connection data”. A distinction that differs only in the terminology used to describe functionally identical data (credentials v. “connection data) does not patentably distinguish the claim over the prior art.
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 a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitations of determining that two or more users plan to access a conference from separate [user devices] located in separate areas of an office premises based on data comprising an indication that two of the separate [user devices] are within an audible distance of one another within the office premises, wherein the indication is based on a [network switch], [network router], or [network port] to which the two of the separate [user devices] are connected within the office premises; determining, in response to the indication that the two of the separate [user devices] are within the audible distance of one another within the office premises, that one or more conference rooms within the office premises are available for use by the two or more users at a time of the conference; selecting a conference room of the one or more conference rooms based on stored conference configuration data associated with the conference or at least one of the two or more users; transmitting to each of the separate [user devices], a prompt recommending that the two or more users participate in the conference using a [shared device] comprising a [display], a [camera], a [speaker], and a [microphone], wherein the [shared device] is within the conference room and configured to access the conference; storing, in response to receiving an acceptance of the prompt from at least one of the separate [user devices], a reservation indicating that the conference room is reserved for the two or more users during the conference; and transmitting a [control signal] comprising connection data for connecting to the conference, the [control signal] causing the [shared device] to use the connection data to automatically connect to the conference at the time of the conference upon authentication of at least one of the two or more users. The claims are drawn towards providing users with a conference room recommendation, and recite limitations that directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior, relationships), as evidenced by limitations related to determining that two or more users plan to access a conference from [separate user devices] located in separate areas of an office premises; determining, in response to the indication that the two of the [separate user devices] are within the audible distance of one another within the office premises, that one or more conference rooms within the office premises are available for use by the two or more users at a time of the conference; transmitting, to each of the separate user devices, a prompt recommending that the two or more users participate in the conference using a shared device, within the conference room; and transmitting, to the [shared device], a [control signal] causing the [shared device] to automatically connect to the conference at the time of the conference upon authentication of at least one of the two users. The above-mentioned claim limitations, along with limitations detailing selecting a conference room of the one or more conference rooms based on stored conference configuration data associated with the conference or at least one of the two or more users, also recite limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: The features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a conferencing server; separate user devices; a network router, switch, or port; a control signal; a shared device comprising a display, camera, speaker, and microphone; at least one non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 8), one or more processors (claims 8 and 15), memory hardware (claim 15), a conference room scheduling database. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Additionally, the control signal amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (conference/meeting access and scheduling). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite the limitations of generating the indication by detecting, within an [audio signal] received, by the [conferencing server], from a [first user device of the separate user devices], audio content detected, using a [microphone] of the [first user device], from a [speaker] of a [second user device] of the separate user devices. The claims recite limitations that are further directed to the judicial exceptions analyzed above. The claims also recite the additional elements of an audio signal, the conferencing server, a microphone of a first user device, and a speaker of a second user device. The additional element of the audio signal, microphone, and speaker amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Further, the user devices amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hapse (2014/0236876) in view of Xi (US 11,323,493) further in view of Chanda (2021/0351946).
Claim 1: A method, comprising:
Primary reference, Hapse, discloses:
determining, by the conferencing server in response to the indication that the two of the separate user devices are within the audible distance of one another within the office premises, that one or more conference rooms within the office premises are available for use by the two or more users at a time of the conference; (Hapse ¶0020 disclosing an invitation for a meeting; a location associated with a recipient is identified (i.e. where the recipient works (office premises)) and compared to the location associated with the sender, if the location is not similar (e.g., not in the same building) the recipient is prompted to select a meeting room at their location; ¶0035 disclosing the respective locations of the recipients are determined, those associated with locations that correspond to the first recipient (e.g. same location) can be presented the association between the meeting and the selected meeting room, e.g. the recipients can be presented a suggestion to use the reserved meeting room to participate in the meeting (¶0034 discloses the meeting being reserved by the first recipient))
selecting, by the conferencing server, a conference room of the one or more conference rooms based on stored conference configuration data associated with the conference or at least one of the two or more users; (Hapse ¶0034 disclosing meeting room selection further may include an indicator of the capacity of the selected meeting room (configuration); the meeting server application can generate a record in a data table (e.g., in a database) that includes the…capacity of the reserved meeting room, who reserved the meeting room; ¶0031 disclosing the meeting rooms indicated in the list can be meeting rooms having a maximum capacity at least equal to the total number of recipients associated with the location with which the first recipient is associated (also configuration))
storing, by the conferencing server, in a conference room scheduling database, in response to receiving an acceptance of the prompt from at least one of the separate user devices, a reservation indicating that the conference room is reserved for the two or more users during the conference; and (Hapse ¶0034 disclosing meeting room selection 180 further may include an indicator of the capacity of the selected meeting room, an identifier corresponding to who reserved the selected meeting room (first/original meeting room), etc. Responsive to receiving the meeting room selection 180, the meeting server application 140 can generate a record in a data table (e.g., in a database) that includes the meeting identifier, an identifier corresponding to the reserved meeting room, the capacity of the reserved meeting room, who reserved the meeting room, and any other pertinent information; ¶0035 disclosing the additional recipients of the meeting invitation being suggested to use the conference room to participate in the meeting; the recipients/participants may accept (or decline); ¶0036 discloses that the meeting client app can receive indication from a second participant of whether the associated location (meeting room) is suitable for the participant; ¶0038 discloses the indication that the second recipient/participant accepts the meeting invite and location; the meeting server application 140 can identify the total number of recipients who have accepted the meeting invitation 160 and who are scheduled to use the originally selected meeting room; if this number exceeds the capacity of the originally selected meeting room, a new meeting room can be reserved by the second recipient, and the meeting client application 154 can generate a new meeting room selection 182 and communicate this to the meeting server application 140; new meeting room selection 182 can include an association between the new meeting room and the meeting. In this regard, the new meeting room selection 182 can include an identifier for the meeting, an identifier for the new meeting room, an indicator of the capacity of the new meeting room, an identifier corresponding to who reserved the new meeting room, etc.; the meeting server application 140 can generate a new record to the data table with such information, or update the previously generated record; ¶0039 some recipients can use the originally reserved room and some recipients can use the new meeting room (both are reserved))
Hapse in view of Xi discloses:
determining, by a conferencing server, that two or more users plan to access a conference from separate user devices located in separate areas of an office premises based on data comprising an indication that two of the separate user devices are within an audible distance of one another within the office premises,
Hapse discloses determining, by a conferencing server, that two or more users plan to access a conference from separate user devices located in separate areas, possibly the same building for similar locations: (Hapse ¶0020 disclosing an invitation for a meeting; a location associated with a recipient is identified (i.e. where the recipient works (office premises)) and compared to the location associated with the sender, if the location is not similar (e.g., not in the same building) the recipient is prompted to select a meeting room at their location; ¶0035 discloses determining the participants are in the same location (insinuating from prior citation, the same building as a possibility); ¶0027 discloses the meeting client application accessing the location of the recipient and sender and determining their locations, ¶0024 further discloses the app being configured to run on a suitable operating system hosted by the server, program code may be a stand-alone software package (¶0015); ¶0040 also disclosing, similar to ¶0036, the locations of a first and second recipient (or sender) being different; Fig. 3, ¶0010, and ¶0024 discloses a server for associating a meeting room with a meeting;). Hapse does not explicitly disclose determining, by a conferencing server, that two or more users plan to access a conference from separate user devices located in separate areas of an office premises based on data comprising an indication that two of the separate user devices are within an audible distance of one another within the office premises. Xi suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Xi Col. 10, Ln. 25-28, 33-38, 53-56 disclosing location-based breakout room assignments may also be determined using facial and voiceprint recognition; for example, a meeting device (e.g., a user device, a videoconference endpoint, or another device); meeting server(s) may facilitate an online meeting or communication session among user devices 120-1 to 120-N in different geographical locations over network(s) using audio and/or video; Col. Ln. 11, Ln. 9-11, 12-22, 45-49 disclosing determining the locations based on voiceprint recognition techniques associated with users participating to create groups for a breakout session/meetings; request may indicated devices in a common location or within a particular distance of each other to be placed in the same meeting/session; meeting server(s) 110 may assign user devices to a group based on…voiceprint associated with users in a field of view or voices within a distance of a microphone of a user device (audible distance); Col. 2, Ln. 54-56 disclosing the environment may be a room such as a conference room). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hapse to include determining, by a conferencing server, that two or more users plan to access a conference from separate user devices located in separate areas of an office premises based on data comprising an indication that two of the separate user devices are within an audible distance of one another within the office premises as taught by Xi. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hapse in order to suggest physical location-based breakout sessions (see Col. 1, Ln. 56-57 of Xi).
Hapse in view of Xi, further in view of Chanda discloses:
wherein the indication is based on a network switch, network router, or network port to which the two of the separate user devices are connected within the office premises;
Hapse in view of Xi, as indicated above, discloses the limitation of determining, by a conferencing server, that two or more users plan to access a conference from separate user devices located in separate areas of an office premises based on data comprising an indication that two of the separate user devices are within an audible distance of one another within the office premises. Specifically, Xi discloses that the locations of the users in the conference may be obtained via Bluetooth identifiers, wireless devise having geo-location compatibility that may be used by the meeting server (Col. 9, Ln. 55-Col. 10, Ln. 12), and that the room assignments may be done via voiceprint and facial recognition (Col. 11, Ln. 6-11)). Hapse in view of Xi, although strongly suggested, does not explicitly disclose that the indication is based on a network switch, network router, or network port to which the two of the separate user devices are connected within the office premises. Chanda suggests this limitation/concept: (Chanda ¶0057 discloses the devices 102 are each in communication with the collaboration server 107 via a network 104; the network 104 can include all forms of networking components, such as LANs, WANs, routers, switches, WiFi components, cellular components, wired and optical components, and the internet; in one scenario two or more of the users 101 are located in the same room, and their devices 102 communicate via WiFi with the collaboration server 107; in another scenario the users are separated from each other and communicate with the collaboration server via the internet; thus this paragraph indicates that the network can include all forms of networking components including routers, switches, and other components (e.g., Wi-Fi components which may also be a router), to which the devices are connected and a location is determined for the devices, such as if the devices are located in the same room (which is an audible distance) as indicated in the paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hapse in view of Xi to include that the indication (that two of the separate users are within audible distance of one another) is based on a network switch, network router, or network port to which the two of the separate user devices are connected within the office premises as taught by Chanda. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hapse in view of Xi in order to determine the locations of the users via their devices (see ¶0057 of Chanda).
transmitting, by the conferencing server to each of the separate user devices, a prompt recommending that the two or more users participate in the conference using a shared device comprising a display, a camera, a speaker, and a microphone, wherein the shared device is within the conference room and configured to access the conference;
Hapse discloses transmitting, to each of the separate user devices, a prompt recommending that the two or more users participate in the conference using a shared meeting room: (Hapse ¶0035 disclosing the respective locations of the recipients are determined, those associated with locations that correspond to the first recipient (e.g. same location) can be presented the association between the meeting and the selected meeting room, e.g. the recipients can be presented a suggestion to use the reserved meeting room to participate in the meeting (¶0034 discloses the meeting being reserved by the first recipient); ¶0031 disclosing the suggestion for the first recipient reserving the meeting room for a meeting room that is available at the scheduled time; ¶0035 discloses recipients accessing the meeting invites; this may be done at the client device and includes an association between the meeting and meeting room and present it the recipients; also ¶0038 discloses a second recipient accesses the meeting invite as well as the first recipient (¶0027); part of the display unit is associated with the conference (see ¶0025 disclosing the meeting client app being executed on the client devices; the client app interfaces with the meeting room app executed on the client device; see also Fig. 1 disclosing the client device 122 and the meeting app on the device). Hapse, although strongly implied, does not explicitly disclose transmitting, to each of the separate user devices, a prompt recommending that the two or more users participate in the conference using a shared device comprising a display, a camera, a speaker, and a microphone, wherein the shared device is within the conference room and configured to access the conference. Chanda suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Chanda ¶0026 disclosing a collaboration environment in which users can participate in an interactive collaboration from the same meeting room; the technology disclosed in the reference addresses the problem of authenticating a user by providing access to…a shared digital workspace (also referred to as a workspace or a digital asset), and providing a user with the ability to access and/or share a workspace and/or participate in a collaboration on their own device (e.g., a handheld tablet) while, for example, the collaboration is active on other devices as well (e.g., a display wall in a meeting room); the collaboration is active on other devices as well (e.g., a display wall in a meeting room) ¶0027 user devices, which are referred to as client-side network nodes, have displays on which a displayable area is allocated for displaying events in a workspace; ¶0028 the meeting can also identify one or more meeting rooms for the collaboration and assign other resources for the meeting such as one or more digital displays located in the meeting rooms; technology disclosed can also use conferencing systems such as Cisco WebEx™ Microsoft Skype™ to allow voice and video communication (camera) between the meeting participants; ¶0032 disclosing the collaboration server can detect an input from a user via the communication module to identify a shared digital workspace (such as a workspace); see Fig. 2 disclosing the display wall where multiple participants have access to the shared device (¶0026 also discloses that the participants joining the conference or meeting using digital displays such as the display wall, desktop and laptop computers, etc., and the display wall being a device); ¶0069 further discloses the shared digital workspace and that the displays video (camera) and/or audio output (speaker) from the smart dongle; ¶0118 disclosing audio input of the display including microphones; ¶0119 disclosing that the audio output device (e.g., speakers) includes intended to include all possible types of devices and ways to output information from the computer system to the user or to another machine or computer system). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hapse in view of Xi to include transmitting, by the conferencing server to each of the separate user devices, a prompt recommending that the two or more users participate in the conference using a shared device comprising a display, a camera, a speaker, and a microphone, wherein the shared device is within the conference room and configured to access the conference as taught by Chanda. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hapse in view of Xi in order provide a system that can more effectively and automatically manage user authorization, content sharing, and access to digital display walls in a collaboration system so that shared digital content (e.g., a shared digital workspace) is efficiently distributed to meeting participants and only participants of a meeting can access digital display walls during a scheduled meeting (see ¶0004 of Chanda).
transmitting, by the conferencing server to the shared device, a control signal comprising connection data for connecting to the conference, the control signal causing the shared device to use the connection data to automatically connect to the conference at the time of the conference upon authentication of at least one of the two or more users.
Hapse in view of Xi discloses the participants being connected to the conference, but does not explicitly disclose transmitting, by the conferencing server to the shared device, a control signal comprising connection data for connecting to the conference, the control signal causing the shared device to use the connection data to automatically connect to the conference at the time of the conference upon authentication of at least one of the two or more users. Chanda suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Chanda ¶0026 disclosing a collaboration environment in which users can participate in an interactive collaboration from the same meeting room; the technology disclosed in the reference addresses the problem of authenticating a user by providing access to…a shared digital workspace (also referred to as a workspace or a digital asset), and providing a user with the ability to access and/or share a workspace and/or participate in a collaboration on their own device (e.g., a handheld tablet) while, for example, the collaboration is active on other devices as well (e.g., a display wall in a meeting room); ¶0028 the meeting can also identify one or more meeting rooms for the collaboration and assign other resources for the meeting such as one or more digital displays located in the meeting rooms; ¶0032 disclosing the collaboration server can detect an input from a user via the communication module to identify a shared digital workspace (such as a workspace) for which the user is authorized to access; collaboration server can also detect the input from a user identifying one or more requested display identification codes (DICs) (connection data). The collaboration server then determines if the requested display identification code (DIC) input by the user matches to the DIC sent to the display client. In response to the match, the collaboration server starts a collaboration by providing access to the display client to shared digital workspace to via the smart dongle (smart dongle gives the control signal for connection); ¶0031 also discloses the smart dongle includes logic to provide a display identification code (DIC) to the display client for display of the DIC. In one embodiment, the collaboration server sends a display identification code (DIC) to the smart dongle which then sends the received DIC to the display client for display; ¶0036 further discloses the technology disclosed can use information collected from meeting scheduling systems to only allow the users who are participants of a meeting to join the collaboration meeting and use hardware resources; e.g., when an authenticated user attempts to download a workspace to a digital display wall in a meeting room, the collaboration server 107 allows the user to share or download the workspace to the digital display wall if the user is participant of the current scheduled meeting in the room in which the digital wall is placed. If a user is attempting to download the workspace to the digital display wall before the meeting start time, the system can deny this request and display a message to the user with the meeting time at which she can start using the hardware devices in the meeting room; see Fig. 2 disclosing the display wall where multiple participants have access to the shared device (¶0026 also discloses that the participants joining the conference or meeting using digital displays such as the display wall, desktop and laptop computers, etc., and the display wall being a device); ¶0048 technology disclosed can gather the “user” (or a participant) data from scheduling systems 105. In one embodiment, the user information is stored as part of the display mappings database 108. In another embodiment, the user information can be stored as a separate user database. In such an embodiment, the records in the user data database can be linked to the entries in the display mappings database 108 and event map stack database 109. The user data can include information such as name of the user, a user identifier, login credentials, etc. (also connection data); collaboration server can use the credentials to identify the user in dependence upon the detected input from the user prior to the start of the collaboration. If the credentials entered by the user match the credentials stored in the user database, the system allows the user to start the collaboration. Otherwise, the system can restrict user's access to the shared digital workspace (also referred to as workspace) in dependence upon authorization information associated with the identity of the user or with the shared digital workspace; ¶0060 disclosing three users attending a meeting collaboration rom 205 using the digital display wall (shared device) in the meeting room; ¶0068 also disclosing the collaboration server 107 detects the input from the user including one or more display identification codes (DICs). In this example, the user enters the display identification codes "12345", "35791", and "24680" (connection data) and the collaboration server 107 receives, via the communication module, information identifying the selections of the user as well as information identifying the user and/or the mobile phone 102. The collaboration server 107 determines that a match exists when a DIC identified by the input from the user matches the DIC sent to the display client; If a match is determined to exist, then the collaboration server 107 starts a collaboration (e.g., a collaboration session) by providing access to the shared digital workspace; ¶0069 a smart dongle 111 can be connected to display 102d. This smart dongle 111 includes hardware and software capable of (i) communicating with the collaboration server 107 to obtain the DIC, (ii) communicating with the display 102d to provide the DIC for display and to also provide and (iii) communicating with the collaboration server 107 and the display 102d to gain access to the shared digital workspace and provide the shared digital workspace to the display). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hapse in view of Xi to include transmitting, by the conferencing server to the shared device, a control signal comprising connection data for connecting to the conference, the control signal causing the shared device to use the connection data to automatically connect to the conference at the time of the conference upon authentication of at least one of the two or more users as taught by Chanda. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hapse in view of Xi in order to provide a system that can more effectively and automatically manage user authorization, content sharing, and access to digital display walls in a collaboration system so that shared digital content (e.g., a shared digital workspace) is efficiently distributed to meeting participants and only participants of a meeting can access digital display walls during a scheduled meeting (see ¶0004 of Chanda).
Claims 8 and 15 are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium and a system, respectively. Claims 8 and 15 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a method. Claims 8 and 15 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1. Furthermore, claims 8 and 15 recite:
(Claim 8) A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: (Hapse ¶0013 disclosing a computer-readable medium which may be a computer-readable storage medium; the computer-readable storage medium meaning a non-transitory storage medium; the computer program instructions provided to a processor and executed via the processor)
(Claim 15) A system, comprising: memory hardware; and one or more processors configured to execute instructions stored in the memory hardware to: (Hapse ¶0016 disclosing a general purpose computer having a processor that execute instructions; ¶0013 disclosing the computer-readable storage medium and memory)
Claim 2: The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating the indication by detecting, within an audio signal received, by the conferencing server, from a first user device of the separate user devices, audio content detected, using a microphone of the first user device, from a speaker of a second user device of the separate user devices.
Hapse discloses the concept of determining using conferencing software and based on stored data associated with two or more users participating in the conference, that the two or more users are presently accessing the conferencing software from separate user devices located in separate areas, but does not explicitly disclose generating the indication by detecting, within an audio signal received, by the conferencing server, from a first user device of the separate user devices, audio content detected, using a microphone of the first user device, from a speaker of a second user device of the separate user devices. Xi suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Xi Col. 10, Ln. 25-28, 33-38, 53-56 disclosing location-based breakout room assignments may also be determined using facial and voiceprint recognition; for example, a meeting device (e.g., a user device, a videoconference endpoint, or another device); meeting server(s) may facilitate an online meeting or communication session among user devices 120-1 to 120-N in different geographical locations over network(s) using audio and/or video; Col. Ln. 11, Ln. 9-11, 12-22, 45-49 disclosing determining the locations based on voiceprint recognition techniques associated with users participating to create groups for a breakout session/meetings; request may indicate devices in a common location or within a particular distance of each other to be placed in the same meeting/session; meeting server(s) 110 may assign user devices to a group based on…voiceprint associated with users in a field of view or voices within a distance of a microphone of a user device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hapse to include generating the indication by detecting, within an audio signal received, by the conferencing server, from a first user device of the separate user devices, audio content detected, using a microphone of the first user device, from a speaker of a second user device of the separate user devices as taught by Xi. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hapse in order to suggest physical location-based breakout sessions (see Col. 1, Ln. 56-57 of Xi).
Claims 9 and 16: Claims 9 and 16 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and system, respectively. Claims 9 and 16 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 2, which is directed towards a method. Claims 9 and 16 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 2.
Claim 4: The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the two or more users plan to access the conference from the separate user devices occurs before the conference is implemented using conferencing software and based on stored data associated with two or more users associated with the conferencing software. (Hapse ¶0020 disclosing a location associated with a recipient is identified (i.e. where the recipient works) and compared to the location associated with the sender, if the location is not similar the recipient is prompted to select a meeting room at their location; ¶0027 discloses the meeting client application accessing the location of the recipient and sender and determining their locations once they access the meeting invitation (accessing conference software), ¶0024 further discloses the app being configured to run on a suitable operating system hosted by the server, program code may be a stand-alone software package (¶0015); ¶0027 disclosing the first recipient using the client device and accessing the meeting invite (accessing the conference software); and the meeting client application determining a location associated with the recipient; ¶0028 disclosing the respective locations if the sender and recipient of the meeting being determined based on respective records associated with the sender and the first recipient contained in a personnel directory; ¶0034 disclosing recording in a data table in a database data associated with who reserved the meeting room, etc.; ¶0038 disclosing when a second recipient using the client device accesses (e.g., accepts) the meeting invitation, and the location associated with the second recipient corresponds to the location associated with the first recipient, the meeting server application can identify the total number of recipients who have accepted the meeting invitation and who are scheduled to use the originally selected meeting room; a new meeting room selection due to possible exceeded capacity may be recorded and/or generate a new record to the data table with such information, or update the previously generated record; ¶0035 also disclosing other recipients of the meeting accessing the meeting invitation an the respective locations associated with the recipients being determined as previously described and the recipients whose locations correspond to the location associated with the first recipient (e.g. same location) can determined; ¶0036 discloses the second recipient not being in the same location as the first recipient (not a suitable location) and the a list of new meeting rooms being generated associated with the location of the second recipient; ¶0040 also disclosing, similar to ¶0036, the locations of a first and second recipient (or sender) being different)
Claims 11 and 18: Claims 11 and 18 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and system, respectively. Claims 11 and 18 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 4, which is directed towards a method. Claims 11 and 18 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 4.
Claim 5: The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the one or more conference rooms within the office premises are available is done by accessing stored conference room scheduling data of the office premises. (Hapse ¶0031 disclosing the meeting server application or the meeting client application can present to the first recipient a list of meeting rooms available at the location associated with the first recipient at the scheduled time of the meeting; ¶0020 disclosing list of meeting rooms available at the time of the meeting can be presented to the user when the user accesses the meeting invitation, and the user can select at least one of the meeting rooms to reserve the meeting room, and ¶0022 disclosing a list of available meeting rooms may also be sent to a recipient of the initial meeting when some of the attendees exceed the capacity of a first selected meeting room; ¶0034 disclosing a record in a data table (e.g. database) including meeting scheduling information, i.e. who reserved the room, capacity, etc.)
Claims 12 and 19: Claims 12 and 19 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and system, respectively. Claims 12 and 19 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 5, which is directed towards a method. Claims 12 and 19 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 5.
Claim 7: The method of claim 1,
wherein the authentication comprises a login or a two-factor authentication code.
Hapse in view of Xi discloses allowing meeting participants access to the conference, but does not explicitly disclose that the authentication comprises a login or a two-factor authentication code. Chanda suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Chanda ¶0034 disclosing authenticating users which may include a two-step process; the first processing being a login process where the user or participant enters login credentials such as a personal identification number (PIN), or even a DIC, to get access to the collaboration server (i.e., the user is authenticated); see also ¶0048 and ¶0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hapse in view of Xi to include that the authentication comprises a login or a two-factor authentication code as taught by Chanda. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hapse in view of Xi in order provide a system that can more effectively and automatically manage user authorization, content sharing, and access to digital display walls in a collaboration system so that shared digital content (e.g., a shared digital workspace) is efficiently distributed to meeting participants and only participants of a meeting can access digital display walls during a scheduled meeting (see ¶0004 of Chanda).
Claim 14: Claim 14 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Claims 14 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 7, which is directed towards a method. Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 7.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 10, 13, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hapse (2014/0236876) in view of Xi (US 11,323,493) further in view of Chanda (2021/0351946) further in view of Kilicoglu (2021/0264376).
Claim 3: The method of claim 1,
wherein selecting the conference room comprises selecting the conference room based on natural language processing of a title of the conference.
Hapse discloses selection of a conference room, but does not explicitly disclose selecting the conference room comprises selecting the conference room based on natural language processing of a title of the conference. Kilicoglu suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Kilicoglu ¶0008 disclosing the schedule that receives conversation data from various sources, and analyzes the conversation data to determine if a meeting should be scheduled; ¶0009 discloses a list of known projects and topics may be used as keywords to search for within the proximity of the location. Natural language processing and text analytics may be also be used to analyze the conversation data; ¶0013 further discloses that the scheduler may also determine locations for the meeting; the scheduler may determine a room for each of the two groups based on the size of each group. Once a physical location for the meeting is determined, the scheduler may update a location access system to indicate the attendees that will be at the location on the meeting date and time. For example, the scheduler may provide a list of names, identifiers, date, time, meeting location, etc. to the location access system; further ¶0015 gives the example of scheduling a meeting from conversation data, a portion of a conversation may include “We need to set aside an hour to meet next Thursday or Friday to discuss end of the year sales.” Analyzing the conversation data would result in a sixty-minute meeting needing to be scheduled sometime next Thursday or Friday. In addition, the topic of the meeting may be determined as end of the year sales. The attendees may then be determined as the sales team based on the meeting topic of end of the year sales.; Fig. 2 gives the details of the process in a flowchart which, after analyzed the data, the data used to determine physical locations of the meeting and update the building access (see also ¶0024-¶0025)) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hapse in view of Xi further in view of Chanda to include selecting the conference room comprises selecting the conference room based on natural language processing of a title of the conference as taught by Kilicoglu 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; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 10 and 17: Claims 10 and 17 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and system, respectively. Claims 10 and 17 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 3, which is directed towards a method. Claims 10 and 17 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 3.
Claim 6: The method of claim 1,
wherein determining that the two or more users plan to access the conference from the separate user devices located in the separate areas of the office premises is based on at least one of: a calendar of at least one of the two or more users, or a current or past geographic location of a user device of the separate user devices associated with at least one of the two or more users.
Hapse discloses determining the geographic locations of the users, but does not explicitly disclose that determining that the two or more users plan to access the conference from the separate user devices located in the separate areas of the office premises is based on at least one of: a calendar of at least one of the two or more users, or a current or past geographic location of a user device of the separate user devices associated with at least one of the two or more users. Kilicoglu suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Kilicoglu ¶0024 disclosing determining a physical location for each of the attendees; this may be done based on the calendar information and the common date and time for the meeting; the scheduler may determine work location such as a floor, cubicle, office where the attendee will be working on the date and time for the meeting; if an attendee is working in the same building but on a different floor compared to other attendees of the meeting the scheduler will determine an alternate working location for the attendee closer to the other attendees; and ¶0025 disclosing if a number of attendees have a common location for the date and time of the meeting, a physical location such as a conference room is scheduled for use of the meeting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hapse in view of Xi further in view of Ramaswamy further in view of Chanda to include that determining that the two or more users plan to access the conferencing software from the separate user devices located in the separate areas of the office premises is based on at least one of: a calendar of at least one of the two or more users, or a current or past geographic location of a user device of the at least one of the two or more users as taught by Kilicoglu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Hapse in view of Xi further in view of Chanda in order to determining an alternate location closer to the other attendees, and determining a physical location for the meeting (see ¶0024-¶0025 of Kilicoglu).
Claims 13 and 20: Claims 13 and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and system, respectively. Claims 13 and 20 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 6, which is directed towards a method. Claims 13 and 20 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 6.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights