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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shepherd et al. (US 2015/0149929 A1).
As to claim 1, Shepherd discloses a method [Paragraph 0001] comprising:
providing, for display on a first client device of a first participant of a plurality of participants of a virtual meeting [FIG. 4], a user interface (UI) [405 on FIG. 4] during the virtual meeting at a first point in time, the UI comprising a plurality of regions each presenting a visual item corresponding to a video stream generated by a client device of a respective participant of the virtual meeting [“All users connected are provided in a session tabs of contents in public portion on any attached display and each participant has their own private portion to access personal information at the start.” Paragraph 0093];
detecting, via the UI during the virtual meeting at a second point in time, engagement of the first participant with a first visual item corresponding to a video stream generated by a second client device of a second participant of the virtual meeting [“A subsequent session takes places that is associated with previous session is resumed at a later time.” Paragraph 0045];
generating one or more information items associated with the second participant for the first participant, the one or more information items associated with the second participant being absent from the UI at the first point in time and the second point in time [“An input is received, the information are correlated from the input received via time synchronization.” Paragraph 0078]; and
causing the one or more information items associated with the second participant to be presented within the UI on the first client device of the first participant during the virtual meeting at a third point in time [“Perform aggregation of contextual data with traditional information to create a unique event such as identifying participant at the end of the meeting at the third time.” Paragraph 0083].
As to claim 5, Shepherd discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more information items include a meeting history obtained from a calendar application [“The interaction between the participants include calendar events.” Paragraph 0042].
As to claim 6, Shepherd discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more information items include data associated with the first participant obtained from a contacts application [“The remote participants are located in geographically distributed depend on their contact information.” Paragraph 0050].
As to claim 7, Shepherd discloses the method of claim 1, wherein causing the one or more information items associated with the second participant to be presented within the UI on the first client device of the first participant during the virtual meeting at the third point in time comprises: causing a region of the UI corresponding to the first visual item to be updated to display the one or more information item [“All users connected are provided in a session tabs of contents in public portion on any attached display and each participant has their own private portion to access personal information at the start.” Paragraph 0093].
As to claim 8, Shepherd discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to receiving input from the first participant via the first client device indicative of a request to update the one or more information items, updating the one or more information items according to the received input [“The moderator has the privileges to update content in the meeting workspace.” Paragraph 0051].
As to claim 17, Shepherd discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to perform operations comprising: see claim 1’s rejection above for the rest of claim 17’s limitations.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 9-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd in view of Diamant et al. (US 2019/0341050 A1).
As to claim 2, Shepherd discloses the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose an artificial intelligence generating prompt.
However, Diamant teaches wherein generating one or more information items associated with the second participant for the first participant comprises: automatically generating a prompt using information associated with the virtual meeting [“The intelligent assistant prompt the local participant to provide further identifying information.” Paragraph 0087];
providing the prompt and context associated with the engagement of the first participant with the first visual item corresponding to the video stream generated by the second client device as input to a generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) model [“The intelligent assistant assigns the local participant a guest identity until the video stream is available.” Paragraph 0086];
obtaining one or more outputs from the generative Al model [“The speech recognition operate AI models to translate speech audio of the participants.” Paragraph 0058]; and
generating the one or more information items using the one or more outputs [“The training speech recognition with regard to a plurality of individuals further tunes recognition for more outputs.” Paragraph 0059].
Shepherd and Diamant are analogous because they are all directed to content sharing in meeting system. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to modify Shepherd reference with the teaching of Diamant, so that the information sharing would include an artificial intelligent in the content sharing of Shepherd, would have been combined into an output model, for the obvious purpose of providing the user the automatic transmission of the content, by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 3, Shepherd discloses the method of claim 2, wherein automatically generating the prompt using information associated with the virtual meeting comprises: generating the prompt using at least one of a title of the virtual meeting, shared meeting notes associated with the virtual meeting, a name of the first participant, or an email address of the first participant [“The intelligent assistant assigns the local participant a guest identity until the video stream is available. The examiner chooses a name of the first participant because of the simple or” Paragraph 0086].
As to claim 4, Shepherd discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the context comprises at least one of documents, meeting notes, emails, meeting summarizations, or web browser history associated with the first participant [“Meeting projects content include email. The examiner chooses emails because of the simple or.” Paragraph 0076].
As to claim 9, Shepherd discloses a system [FIG. 3] comprising:
a memory device [306 on FIG. 3]; and
a processing device [301 on FIG. 3] coupled to the memory device, the processing device to perform operations comprising: see claim 1’s rejection for the rest of claim 9’s limitations.
Shepherd fails to disclose a generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) model.
However, Diamant teaches using a generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) model [“The speech recognition operate AI models to translate speech audio of the participants.” Paragraph 0058].
Shepherd and Diamant are analogous because they are all directed to content sharing in meeting system. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to modify Shepherd reference with the teaching of Diamant, so that the information sharing would include an artificial intelligent in the content sharing of Shepherd, would have been combined into an output model, for the obvious purpose of providing the user the automatic transmission of the content, by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 10, see claim 2’s rejection above.
As to claim 11, see claim 3’s rejection above.
As to claim 12, see claim 4’s rejection above.
As to claim 13, see claim 5’s rejection above.
As to claim 14, see claim 6’s rejection above.
As to claim 15, see claim 7’s rejection above.
As to claim 16, see claim 8’s rejection above.
As to claim 18, see claim 2’s rejection above.
As to claim 19, see claim 3’s rejection above.
As to claim 20, see claim 4’s rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
See Nelson et al. (US 2018/0101823 A1) discloses an artificial intelligence is introduced into an electronic meeting context to perform various tasks before, during, and/or after electronic meetings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD GAUTHIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7539. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM to 4:30 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, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/GERALD GAUTHIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
December 8, 2025
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692