DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is written in response to an amendment filed on 12/4/2025. As directed by amendment: Claims 1, 7, 9, 15, 17, and 20 were amended. No new claims were added and no claims were cancelled. Thus, Claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-20 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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, 12-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modai et al (“Modai”, US 20160269449) in view of Hilmarsson et al (“Hilmarsson”, US 20240395259) in further view of Singh et al (“Singh”, US 11870824).
Regarding Claim 1, Modai teaches a method comprising:
receiving an indication of a security level associated with a current topic of the communication session based on the transcript (par 18; par 56; The security level is the access permissions.);
Modai does not explicitly teach transmitting a transcript of a communication session to a large language model (LLM) while the communication session is occurring; receiving, from the LLM, (data); wherein the communication session is associated with a first security level; second security level; changing a security level associated with the communication session from the first security level to the second security level when the second security level is higher than the first security level; determining whether a participant of the communication session is authorized to receive information associated with the current topic based on the changed security level; and while the communication session is occurring, performing one or more actions when the participant is not authorized to receive the information associated with the current topic.
Hilmarsson teaches transmitting a transcript of a communication session to a large language model (LLM) while the communication session is occurring (par 81; Fig. 6, elements {630, 680}, par 89, par 95);
receiving, from the LLM, (data) (par 81; Fig. 6, elements {630, 680}, par 89, par 95).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Modai with the large language model of Hilmarsson because it allows for enhanced natural language understanding and follow-up suggestions which could provide users with ideas for subsequent conferences (Hilmarsson; par 95).
Modai and Hilmarsson do not explicitly teach wherein the communication session is associated with a first security level; second security level; changing a security level associated with the communication session from the first security level to the second security level when the second security level is higher than the first security level; determining whether a participant of the communication session is authorized to receive information associated with the current topic based on the changed security level; and while the communication session is occurring, performing one or more actions when the participant is not authorized to receive the information associated with the current topic.
Singh teaches wherein the communication session is associated with a first security level (Col. 10 lines 30-67; Col. 12 lines 1-67; Col. 13 lines 1-19);
second security level (Col. 10 lines 30-67; Col. 12 lines 1-67; Col. 13 lines 1-19);
changing a security level associated with the communication session from the first security level to the second security level when the second security level is higher than the first security level (Col. 10 lines 30-67; Col. 12 lines 1-67; Col. 13 lines 1-19);
determining whether a participant of the communication session is authorized to receive information associated with the current topic based on the changed security level (Col. 10 lines 30-67; Col. 12 lines 1-67; Col. 13 lines 1-19);
and while the communication session is occurring, performing one or more actions when the participant is not authorized to receive the information associated with the current topic (Col. 10 lines 30-67; Col. 12 lines 1-67; Col. 13 lines 1-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Modai and Hilmarsson with the security levels of Singh because it allows for restricted sharing of information, which includes selectively and dynamically permitting access to presentation content to some participants while denying access to the presentation content to other participants, while all participants remain in the full virtual meeting and do not go to breakout areas (Singh; par 56-63).
Regarding Claim 2, Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh teach the method of claim 1.
Modai further teaches wherein determining whether the participant is authorized to receive the information includes performing a lookup in user data to identify a security clearance level associated with the participant (par 36; par 18; par 56; The security level is the access permissions. The user data is the meeting properties.).
Regarding Claim 4, Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh teach the method of claim 1.
Modai does not explicitly teach wherein performing the one or more actions includes removing the participant from the communication session.
Hilmarsson teaches wherein performing the one or more actions includes removing the participant from the communication session (par 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Modai with the removal of users of Hilmarsson because it allows for hosts to decide who is at the meeting, so that the meeting may be more engaging, and so unwanted users are not at the meeting.
Regarding Claim 5, Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh teach the method of claim 1.
Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh do not explicitly teach wherein performing the one or more actions includes preventing the information from being transmitted to the participant.
Singh teaches wherein performing the one or more actions includes preventing the information from being transmitted to the participant Col. 10 lines 30-67; Col. 12 lines 1-67; Col. 13 lines 1-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Modai and Hilmarsson with the security levels of Singh because it allows for restricted sharing of information, which includes selectively and dynamically permitting access to presentation content to some participants while denying access to the presentation content to other participants, while all participants remain in the full virtual meeting and do not go to breakout areas (Singh; par 56-63).
Regarding Claim 8, Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh teach the method of claim 1.
Modai does not explicitly teach wherein transmitting the transcript includes continuously transmitting the transcript while the communication session is occurring.
Hilmarsson teaches wherein transmitting the transcript includes continuously transmitting the transcript while the communication session is occurring (par 81; Fig. 6, elements {630, 680}, par 89, par 95; The transcript is being generated during the conference at step 630, and therefore is continuously being transmitted.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Modai with the large language model of Hilmarsson because it allows for enhanced natural language understanding and follow-up suggestions which could provide users with ideas for subsequent conferences (Hilmarsson; par 95).
Regarding Claim 9, Modai teaches a device comprising:
a memory (par 61);
a network interface configured to enable network communications (par 69);
and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to perform operations (par 60).
The remainder of Claim 9 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 2.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh in view of Adlersberg et al (“Adlersberg”, US 20250006201).
Regarding Claim 3, Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh teach the method of claim 1.
Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh do not explicitly teach wherein the LLM is trained to classify the current topic of the communication session using previous documents and projects and topics associated with the previous documents and projects.
Adlersberg teaches wherein the LLM is trained to classify the current topic of the communication session using previous documents and projects and topics associated with the previous documents and projects (par 12; The documents are the transcripts. The current topic is the extracted insight.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh with the LLM of Adlersberg because it allows for the extraction of useful insights from a large corpus of meetings (Adlersberg; par 7).
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 3.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh in view of Nambannor Kunnath et al (“Nambannor”, US 20240243941).
Regarding Claim 6, Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh teach the method of claim 1.
Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh do not explicitly teach wherein performing the one or more actions includes: alerting other participants of the communication session that a security breach has occurred, and logging the security breach.
Nambannor teaches wherein performing the one or more actions includes: alerting other participants of the communication session that a security breach has occurred, and logging the security breach (par 26; par 47; The security breach is the uninvited user joining the conference.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh with the uninvited user detection of Nambannor because it prevents unwanted users from participating in conferences, thereby improving privacy and security.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 6.
Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh in view of Blazey et al (“Blazey”, US 20030069828).
Regarding Claim 7, Modai, Hilmarsson, and Singh teach the method of claim 1.
Modai further teaches wherein an indication of the current topic is stored in an entry of a topic data store (par 28; The indication of the current topic is the subject of the meeting.).
Modai and HIlmarsson do not explicitly teach wherein an indication of the second security level are stored in an entry of a topic data store.
Singh teaches second security level (Col. 10 lines 30-67; Col. 12 lines 1-67; Col. 13 lines 1-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Modai and Hilmarsson with the security levels of Singh because it allows for restricted sharing of information, which includes selectively and dynamically permitting access to presentation content to some participants while denying access to the presentation content to other participants, while all participants remain in the full virtual meeting and do not go to breakout areas (Singh; par 56-63).
Blazey teaches wherein an indication of the security level are stored in an entry of a topic data store (par 58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Modai, HIlmarsson, and Singh with the relational database of Blazey because it provides data integrity and accuracy by using structured data and rules.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected with the same reasoning as Claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sammon et al (US 20140082100), Abstract - Systems, methods, and computer-readable storage media for managing meeting agendas in a meeting or conference via a virtual agenda participant. The system maintains, prior to a communication session, a conference agenda associated with the communication session. During the communication session, the system identifies, via a virtual entity, communication items associated with the communication session to yield identified communication items, wherein the virtual entity dynamically monitors the communication session and processes data associated with the communication session to identify the communication items. The system then compares, via the virtual entity, the conference agenda with the identified communication items to determine which items from the conference agenda have been addressed during the communication session.
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 RAQIUL AMIN CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2482. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RAQIUL A CHOUDHURY/Examiner, Art Unit 2444