DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/622,666. In response to Examiner’s action mail dated February 26, 2026, Applicant submitted amendments and arguments mail dated May 26, 2026. The claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-19 are pending.
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 . 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 26, 2026, has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not submit an information disclosure statement (IDS) for consideration by examiner.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-19 are pending in this application. The claims 1, 11, and 17 are amended. Claims 4, 14, and 20 are cancelled.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101, the amendments to claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103, the amendments claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 26, 2026, have been fully considered. The Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 amendments are not persuasive. The Applicant’s 35 U.S.C 103 are considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
On pages 1-4 of the Applicant’s arguments, the Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments and amendments.
Applicant submits independent claims 1, 11, and 17 as amended recite specific technical limitations that are rooted in computer network technology and are not merely abstract concepts of organizing human activity. Applicant submits the amendments are not concepts but rather concrete technical operations performed on network connections.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Step 2A, prong one arguments. Applicant claims are letting certain people collaborate in a conferencing system before the main meeting starts. People collaborating in a meeting room is certain methods of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior. People collaborate in lobbies, waiting rooms, and other designated holding areas before entering a main meeting area.
At Step 2A, prong two, Applicant submits the amended claims integrates any alleges abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant submits, the claims recite a specific technical solution to a technical problem in conferencing platforms. Applicant submits, "automatically transitioning comprises terminating the waiting room connection and establishing a new connection to the scheduled meeting session" further demonstrates integration into a practical application by specifying the technical mechanism for transitioning participants. This is not merely "apply it" language but rather describes specific network connection management operations that must be performed by the conferencing platform.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Step 2A prong, two arguments. Examiner submits, the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are broadly recited as network interface. The reference of Web Real-Time Communication is an applied to the judicial exception. The broad recitation of commercially available technology that is merely applied to the judicial exception is not indicative of a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements are performing computer functions. The claims do not recite an improvement in technology. The claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant traverses the claims are rooted in computer technology to address a problem specifically arising in computer networks can be paten eligible, citing DDR. Applicant submits, the amended claims address a problem specifically arising in conferencing platforms: managing participant connections across multiple communication environments while maintaining data isolation. The solution, maintaining separate communication sessions with distinct data channels and performing specific connection termination and establishment operations, is rooted in computer network technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s DDR argument. The Applicant is arguing that the claimed concept is inventive.
Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s arguments. Examiner submits, the claims, as presented are not similar to DDR. In DDR, the claimed solution displayed the third-party product information within a web page that retained the host website’s visual appearance (look and feel, branding, color scheme), so visitors could transact with the third-party merchant without leaving the host site’s visual environment. In DDR, the Court found that the claims in this case "do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet." Instead, the claims are "necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer network.
Here, the claims are not similar to DDR. The Applicant’s claims recite receiving a request for a participant to join a scheduled meeting; detecting one or more criteria for the participant of the scheduled meeting; based on the one or more criteria, moving the participant to a waiting room, … detecting one or more updated values for the one or more criteria of the participant; and based on in response to detecting the one or more updated values for the one or more criteria, moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting, [[and]] wherein moving the participant comprises automatically transitioning the participant's connection from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting upon detecting updated criteria values, and wherein automatically transitioning comprises terminating the waiting room connection and establishing a new connection to the scheduled meeting session. The functions of moving a participant to a waiting room is an intended function of scheduling. The Applicant limitations recite the function at a broad and high-level where a computer is applied to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Examiner points the Applicant to instant specification [018], [031]-[032] to clarify the embodiment that is claimed and the value that is associated with the embodiment.
Regarding the argument of “The specification discloses that "the server application 209 may terminate the separate waiting room after moving participants from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting." As-Filed Specification, paragraph [0093],” Examiner points the Applicant to the instant specification [074], [087]-[088].
Examiner contends, as presented, the Applicant’s claims are improving the user experience by automating the transition of participants from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting. As claimed, Applicant’s claims do not improve the functioning of a computer other technology. At Step 2B the claims do amount to significantly more.
Applicant traverses, dependent claims 2-3, 5-10 depend from amended independent claim 1, dependent claims 12-13, 15-16 depend from amended independent claims 11, and dependent claims 18-19 depend from independent claim 17. For at least the same reasons that amended independent claims 1, 11 and 17 are patent eligible, dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are also patent eligible. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner submits the dependent claims narrow the independent claims, therefore, the arguments for the independent claims are the same for the dependent claims. See above. The claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant is encouraged to request an interview to discuss the Step 2B arguments.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
On pages 4-7 of the Applicant’s prior arguments, the Applicant traverses the pending 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. Applicant respectfully submits that Examiner’s rationale for combining Masi in view of Ren and Microsft-052A does not cure the deficiencies of Masi with respect to the amended independent claims. Applicant submits, none of the cited art, Masi, Ren, and Microsoft -052 disclose the limitations of the pending claims, and therefore the pending claims are allowable.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Examiner submits the Applicant’s amendments necessitate grounds for a new rejection. See prior art rejection below.
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 1-3, 5-10 are process.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15-16 is/are machine.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are manufacture.
The claims (claim 11 and similarly claim 1 and claim 17) recites, “… receiving a request for a participant to join a scheduled meeting; detecting one or more criteria for the participant of the scheduled meeting; based on the one or more criteria, moving the participant to a waiting room, wherein the waiting room is a separate communication environment from the scheduled meeting where participants can communicate with each other, wherein the waiting room maintains a separate communication session with distinct data channels such that communications made within the waiting room are not viewable by participants outside of the waiting room; moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting, wherein moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting comprises: detecting one or more updated values for the one or more criteria of the participant; and based on in response to detecting the one or more updated values for the one or more criteria, moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting, [[and]] wherein moving the participant comprises automatically transitioning the participant's connection from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting upon detecting updated criteria values, and wherein automatically transitioning comprises terminating the waiting room connection and establishing a new connection to the scheduled meeting session.” The claims recite the abstract concept of letting certain people collaborate in a conferencing system before the main meeting starts. The limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior. Accordingly, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, ““A system for collaboration within a conferencing platform before scheduled meetings, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes:”, “a separate communication session ”, “a new connection to the scheduled meeting session.”, in claim 11 (and similarly claim 1 and 17); “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium, storing a set of instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes:”, in claim 17; however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f)
The dependent claims do not recite additional elements that are not recited in the dependent claims.
The Applicant arguments hinge on the limitation, “…wherein the waiting room is a separate communication environment from the scheduled meeting where participants can communicate with each other, wherein the waiting room maintains a separate communication session with distinct data channels such that communications made within the waiting room are not viewable by participants outside of the waiting room;” and “… wherein automatically transitioning comprises terminating the waiting room connection and establishing a new connection to the scheduled meeting session”. Examiner submits, these limitations are descriptive of how the waiting room functions as a communication environment but lack the integration of additional elements. Examiner points Applicant to instant specification [0103]-[0105].
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) Mere Instruction to Apply an Exception – Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct at 235).
At Step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Examiner invites the Applicant to request an interview to discuss instant specification Figure 9 and the associated text including instant specification [0100]-[0106].
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function (s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-10 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. The claims 1-3, 5-10 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-13, 15-16 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 11. The claims 11-13, 15-16 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 18-19 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 17. The claims 17-19 are not patent eligible.
Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-3, 5-10 & 11-13, 15-16 & 17-19 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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 should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, 9-13, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auccahuasisi (2022, Methodology to carry out medical meeting online, based on low-cost solutions) in view of AISL (2022, Cultivating Digital Safe Spaces: The case of Women Game Jam on Discord) and Microsoft (JP 2008546052 A).
Examiner submits, the inventors name for Application JP 2008546052 is written in Japanese. Therefore, Examiner refers to the Assignee and documentation number JP 2008546052, herein referred to as Microsoft -052A.
Regarding Claim 11, [and similarly claim 1 and claim 17] (Currently Amended)
A system for collaboration within a conferencing platform before scheduled meetings, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes: receiving a request for a participant to join a scheduled meeting;
Auccahuasisi teaches carrying out medical appointments online using DISCORD tool. [abstract] Auccahuasi discloses the DISCORD connectivity tool, this tool is widely used in the video game environment, to be able to play online and share games here DISCORD is applied to medical appointments. The methodology presented consists of using the benefits of the tool, in order to configure a virtual scenario where the following procedures can be carried out: 1.- Connectivity by the patient, where the patient connects to the room for online medical consultation. 2.- Connectivity of the specialist doctors, where the different doctors are connected and the participating doctors have to receive the invitation from the administrator of the room. Auccahuasi [p.75].
Auccahuasi teaches meeting rooms. In figure 4, the interface of the room created with the DISCORD tool, is where you can view the connected users, the room administrator can grant privileges to the connected users, be able to invite them to different rooms. Auccahuasi [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
… detecting one or more criteria for the participant of the scheduled meeting; …. based on the one or more criteria, moving the participant …. detecting one or more updated values for the one or more criteria of the participant; and based on in response to detecting the one or more updated values for the one or more criteria, …. upon detecting updated criteria values, …
Auccahuasi teaches meeting rooms. In figure 4, the interface of the room created with the DISCORD tool, is where you can view the connected users, the room administrator can grant privileges to the connected users, be able to invite them to different rooms. Auccahuasi [Figure 3], [Figure 4] The granting of privileges to satisfies an invitation criteria being updated. See instant specification [033], [037]
Although highly suggested by Aussahuai, Examiner relies on AISL to teach:
….. to a waiting room, wherein the waiting room is a separate communication environment from the scheduled meeting where participants can communicate with each other, wherein the waiting room maintains a separate communication session with distinct data channels such that communications made within the waiting room are not viewable by participants outside of the waiting room; moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting, wherein moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting comprises: …. moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting, [[and]] wherein moving the participant comprises automatically transitioning the participant's connection from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting … and wherein automatically transitioning comprises terminating the waiting room connection and establishing a new connection to the scheduled meeting session.
AISL discloses the DISCORD waiting room is a layer of security. A custodial verifies and monitors the waiting room. The custodian verifies each and every account that wants to access the server. Disclosed a custodial. AISL [4:35] -[4:53].
AISL teaches the benefit of a safe digital space (safety for, safety to) by establishing a digital safe space that has custodians. AISL teaches [5:52] - [6:20]
Auccahuasi discloses the DISCORD tool adapted for to medical appointments AISL teaches waiting room for collaboration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date, inviting participants to the DISCORD space, as taught by Auccahuasi, with transferring the application user from the waiting room to the collaboration space, as taught by AISL, to maintain a safe space. AISL [5:52] - [6:20].
Regarding Claim 2, [and similarly claim 12 and claim 18] (Original)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to moving the participant to the waiting room, generating the waiting room.
See claim 1 . Auccahuasi teaches DISCORD a collaboration space. Auccahuasi [Figure 3], [Figure 4]. AISL [4:35] -[4:53].
AISL teaches waiting room as a safe digital space that has custodians. AISL [4:35] -[4:53], [5:52] - [6:20].
Auccahuasi discloses the DISCORD tool adapted for to medical appointments AISL teaches waiting room for collaboration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date, inviting participants to the DISCORD space, as taught by Auccahuasi, with transferring the application user from the waiting room to the collaboration space, as taught by AISL, to maintain a safe space. AISL [5:52] - [6:20].
Regarding Claim 3, [and similarly claim 13 and claim 19] (Original)
The computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein participants in the waiting room can communicate with each other outside of the scheduled meeting.
See claim 1, Auccahuasi [p. 75], [Figure 3], [Figure 4].
AISL teaches waiting room as a safe digital space that has custodians. AISL [4:35] -[4:53], [5:52] - [6:20].
PNG
media_image1.png
1042
1637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Auccahuasi discloses the DISCORD tool adapted for to medical appointments AISL teaches waiting room for collaboration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date, inviting participants to the DISCORD space, as taught by Auccahuasi, with transferring the application user from the waiting room to the collaboration space, as taught by AISL, to maintain a safe space. AISL [5:52] - [6:20].
Regarding Claim 4, [and similarly claim 14 and claim 20], (Cancelled)
Regarding Claim 5, [and similarly claim 15] (Original)
The computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting, comprises: … a waiting room wait time for a plurality of participants based on a predetermined criteria associated with the waiting room; and upon determining that the waiting room wait time has elapsed for the participant, moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting.
See claim 1, Auccahuasi [p. 75], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
AISL teaches waiting room as a safe digital space that has custodians. The organizers used the configured layers of security so that random accounts cannot access the servers. Custodians were caregivers of the space. AISL [4:35] -[4:53], [5:52] - [6:20].
Auccahuasi discloses the DISCORD tool adapted for to medical appointments AISL teaches waiting room for collaboration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date, inviting participants to the DISCORD space, as taught by Auccahuasi, with transferring the application user from the waiting room to the collaboration space, as taught by AISL, to maintain a safe space. AISL [5:52] - [6:20].
Although highly suggested, Masi does not explicitly teach:
… calculating … wait time … wait time has elapsed
Microsoft -052A Teaches:
… calculating a waiting room wait time … the waiting room wait time has elapsed for the participant ….
Microsoft -052A teaches where the meeting endpoint uses a waiting room, user D can be placed in the waiting room. The meeting endpoint can later remove user D from the waiting room if, for example, the requested meeting does not start within a predetermined amount of time., Microsoft -052A [p.3], [p.4].
Auccahuasi discloses the DISCORD tool adapted for to medical appointments Microsoft -052A teaches virtual meeting timestamping meeting entry points to very meeting attendance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine inviting participants to the DISCORD space, as taught by Auccahuasi, with determining the scheduled meeting has not yet started and allowing authorized meeting attendees to enter the waiting area to where the meeting endpoint uses a waiting room, user D can be placed in the waiting room, as taught by Microsoft -052A, so the meeting endpoint can later remove user D from the waiting room if, for example, the requested meeting does not start within a predetermined amount of time., Microsoft -052A. Microsoft -052A [p.10].
Regarding Claim 6, [and similarly claim 16] (Original)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria is based on participant information.
See claim 1, Auccahuasi [p. 75], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
Regarding Claim 7, (Original)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more criteria comprises determining the one or more criteria from an invitation for the scheduled meeting.
See claim 1, Auccahuasi [p. 75], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
Regarding Claim 9, (Original)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, moving the participant to the separate waiting room in response to user input.
See claim 1. Auccahuasi teaches DISCORD a collaboration space. Auccahuasi [Figure 3], [Figure 4]. AISL [4:35] -[4:53].
AISL teaches waiting room as a safe digital space that has custodians. AISL [4:35] -[4:53], [5:52] - [6:20].
Auccahuasi discloses the DISCORD tool adapted for to medical appointments AISL teaches waiting room for collaboration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date, inviting participants to the DISCORD space, as taught by Auccahuasi, with transferring the application user from the waiting room to the collaboration space, as taught by AISL, to maintain a safe space. AISL [5:52] - [6:20].
Regarding Claim 10, (Original)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving another request for a second participant to join the scheduled meeting; detecting one or more second participant criteria for the second participant; and based on the one or more second participant criteria, moving the second participant to a second waiting room, wherein the second waiting room is separate and distinct from the waiting room.
See claim 1. Auccahuasi teaches DISCORD a collaboration space. Auccahuasi [Figure 3], [Figure 4]. AISL [4:35] -[4:53].
AISL teaches waiting room as a safe digital space that has custodians. AISL [4:35] -[4:53], [5:52] - [6:20].
Auccahuasi discloses the DISCORD tool adapted for to medical appointments AISL teaches waiting room for collaboration. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date, inviting participants to the DISCORD space, as taught by Auccahuasi, with transferring the application user from the waiting room to the collaboration space, as taught by AISL, to maintain a safe space. AISL [5:52] - [6:20].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auccahuasisi (2022, Methodology to carry out medical meeting online, based on low-cost solutions) in view of AISL (2022, Cultivating Digital Safe Spaces: The case of Women Game Jam on Discord) and Microsoft (JP 2008546052 A). and in further view of Masi (US 2021/0,352,120 A1) .
Regarding Claim 8, (Original)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining that the participant is joining after a predetermined time before the scheduled time, wherein the predetermined time is determined by an organizer of the scheduled meeting.
See claim 1, Auccahuasi [p. 75], [Figure 3], [Figure 4 and AISL [4:35] -[4:53], [5:52] - [6:20] and Microsoft -052A teaches timing and waiting room Microsoft -052A [p.3], [p.4].
Examiner further relies on Masi to teach:
predetermined time before the scheduled time,
Masi user- environment features include when users join the meeting their icon appears at the table., Masi [0152]. Masi discloses room check-in and checkout log of every room member., Masi [0144]- [0145].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the room check-in and checkout log will disclose participants joining/exit time, and thus, joining after a predetermined time could be determined from the log.
Auccahuasi discloses the DISCORD tool adapted for to medical appointments Masi distinguishes participant types. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date, inviting participants to the DISCORD space, as taught by Auccahuasi, with using a lobby and a check in checkout log, as taught by Masi, so lobby quest have their own chat. Masi [0147].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Branson (2022, Assessing Student Participation and Engagement Using Discord) teaches Digital collaboration and community building platforms (such as Discord, TeamSpeak, and Slack) include features such as voice over IP, instant chat, emoji responses, and file distribution organized into threaded topic channels or user groups. Users connect through phone calls, video calls, text messaging, media, and files [12], [13]).Banson [p.1299]
Ren (CN 115,633,023 A) teaches transferring the application user from the waiting room to the interview room, and establishing a video connection so the meeting endpoint can later remove user from the waiting room if, for example, as taught by Ren to effectively improve the efficiency. Ren [abstract], [p.4].
Skill Leap (2020, How to Use DISCORD -Mobile App beginners guide ) – describes the DISCORD app, chats, invitations, and servers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
