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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 7, 8, 14, 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under Step 2A prong Two, applicant argues that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application at least in that the claims describe improvements to the functioning of a computer, specifically the additional elements in at least "separate user devices," "a conferencing server," "a prompt," "a shared device," and "a control signal." Examiner disagrees. 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 control signal, a shared device, at least one non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 8), one or more processors (claims 8 and 15), memory hardware (claim 15). 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. 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. Further, there is no evidence of an improvement in computers or technology. Increasing the security of the conference by the computing device awaiting authentication before being connected to the conference thereby reducing the risk of unauthorized access, does not represent an improvement in computers or technology. Computers or technology is not improved by authenticating users before they are able to access or connect to a conference. 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 (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) 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.
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. The claims are not patent eligible.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
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.
Claims 1-7 recite a method (i.e. process), claims 8-14 recite a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture), and 15-20 recite a system (i.e. machine). Therefore claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
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; 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, within the conference room, 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, 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 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 control signal, a shared device, 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:
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, as modified above, discloses the following limitations:
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 further in view of Chanda discloses:
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, within the conference room, 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 configured to access the conferencing software within the conference room. 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); 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). 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, within the conference room, 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 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 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 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 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). 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.; 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" 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 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 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).
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
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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 3628