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 .
1. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 7-8, 13-15, and 19-21 are amended as filed on 05/19/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,021,646 B2, hereinafter 646. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
18/651,690
646
Claims 1, 8, and 15:
A method comprising: hosting, by a group-based communication system and via a user interface, a video meeting that includes a plurality of participants;
maintaining, in association with the video meeting, a thread in which the plurality of participants are authorized to post messages during the video meeting, wherein the thread is maintained within the user interface or within a communication channel associated with the video meeting;
receiving, during the video meeting, within a text entry field of the thread, and from a participant of the plurality of participants, a message to be posted within the thread;
causing display of the message within the thread;
and causing, after an end of the video meeting, the thread to be accessible to the plurality of participants via the group-based communication system
Claim 1:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media that store computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method of documenting a synchronous multimedia collaboration session in connection with a group-based communication system, the method comprising:
detecting a live synchronous multimedia collaboration session in a pre-existing messaging channel of the group-based communication system, the live synchronous multimedia collaboration session accessible to a plurality of channel members of the pre-existing messaging channel, the plurality of channel members comprising a plurality of participant users joined to the live synchronous multimedia collaboration session and a plurality of non-participant users not joined to the live synchronous multimedia collaboration session, wherein the pre-existing messaging channel provides a communications environment to display communications posted by the plurality of channel members;
receiving, from a non-participant user of the plurality of non-participant users, a real-time text input during a second time period of the live synchronous multimedia collaboration session; determining an audio segment of the live synchronous multimedia collaboration session that corresponds to the second time period associated with the real-time text input;
updating in real-time during the live synchronous multimedia collaboration session, the collaboration thread displayed to the plurality of participant users and the plurality of non-participant users to include the first message, the second message, and the transcribed audio segment;
wherein the collaboration thread is persisted within the pre-existing messaging channel such that the collaboration thread is accessible to the plurality of channel members after termination of the live synchronous multimedia collaboration session.
Accordingly, claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21 are also rejected, at least, based on their respective dependencies on claims 1, 8, and 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2022/0191055 A1), hereinafter Christensen, in view of Dorner et al. (Patent No. US 10,536,542 B1), hereinafter Dorner, and in further view of Svarfvar et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2012/0209998 A1), hereinafter Svar.
2. With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, Christensen taught a method comprising: hosting, by a group-based communication system and via a user interface, a video meeting that includes a plurality of participants (title); maintaining, in association with the video meeting, a thread in which the plurality of participants are authorized to post messages during the video meeting, wherein the thread is maintained within the user interface or within a communication channel associated with the video meeting (0064 & figure 5); receiving, during the video meeting, within a text entry field of the thread, and from a participant of the plurality of participants, a message to be posted within the thread (0089); causing display of the message within the thread (figure 5, items 514 & 516).
However, Christensen did not explicitly state causing, after an end of the video meeting, the thread to be accessible to the plurality of participants via the group-based communication system. On the other hand, Dorner did teach causing, after an end of the video meeting, the thread to be accessible to the plurality of participants via the group-based communication system (14:6-21). Both of the systems of Christensen and Dorner are directed towards chat systems and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Christensen, to utilize posting chat histories, as taught by Dorner, in order to improve the marketability of the system by allowing the records of the conference to be made available.
However, while Christensen did teach a communication channel that initiates a video conference under broadest reasonable interpretation (abstract: the groups conferences), in order to promote a more compact prosecution, it will be taken that Christensen did not explicitly state that the video meeting is initiated from within a communication channel and that that thread is persisted with in the communication channel such that that thread is available to the plurality of participants of the communication channel and is inaccessible to at least one of the non-members or non-participants of the video meeting that are included in the plurality of members; Wherein a plurality of members of the communication channel are authorized to access the communication channel and non-members of the communication channel lack authorization to access the communication channel based at least in part on one or more permissions associated with at least one of the communication channel, the plurality of members, or the non-members, wherein the communication channel facilitates posting of first messages within the communication channel, collaboration on documents within the communication channel, and initiation of video calls and audio calls from within the communication channel. On the other hand, Svar did teach Christensen did not explicitly state that the video meeting is initiated from within a communication channel and that that thread is persisted with in the communication channel such that that thread is available to the plurality of participants of the communication channel (0048, the communication thread and where group content can be seen in 0037) and is inaccessible to at least one of the non-members or non-participants of the video meeting that are included in the plurality of members (0048, the authorized members); Wherein a plurality of members of the communication channel are authorized to access the communication channel and non-members of the communication channel lack authorization to access the communication channel based at least in part on one or more permissions associated with at least one of the communication channel, the plurality of members, or the non-members, wherein the communication channel facilitates posting of first messages within the communication channel, collaboration on documents within the communication channel, and initiation of video calls and audio calls from within the communication channel (0048, the authorized members). Both of the systems of Christensen and Svar are directed towards chat systems and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Christensen, to utilize posting chat histories to persistent channels, as taught by Svar, in order to improve the marketability of the system by allowing the records of the conference to be made available.
3. As for claims 2, 9, and 16, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). In addition, Christensen taught in response to receiving the message, causing display of a notification within the user interface indicating new activity within the thread (figure 5, item 514, where this is implicitly taught, at least, by displaying the new posted text).
4. As for claims 3, 10, and 17, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). In addition, Christensen taught wherein the video meeting and the thread are displayed simultaneously within the user interface (figure 5, item 514).
5. As for claims 4, 11, and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). In addition, Christensen taught wherein messages posted within the thread are overlaid with respect to the video meeting (figure 5, items 506, 502, & 514, where the chat box 514 is overlaid over the background 502, with respect to the position of the images 506 & 508).
6. As for claims 5 and 12, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 8 (respectively). In addition, Christensen taught wherein, after the end of the video meeting, the thread is accessible via a list of thread conversations or via the communication channel (14:6-21).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen, in view of Dorner, in view of Svar, and in further view of CHHABRA et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0112450 A1), hereinafter Chhabra.
7. As for claim 21, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. However, Christensen did not explicitly state determining, after a start time of the video meeting, that a member of the plurality of members has yet to join the video meeting; receiving, from the participant or a different participant of the plurality of participants, a selection of a nudge control that requests that the member join the video meeting; and based at least in part on receiving the selection of the nudge control, one of: joining the member to the video meeting without the member taking affirmative action to join the video meeting; or sending a notification to the member indicating that the member has been invited to join the video meeting.
On the other hand, Chhabra did teach determining, after a start time of the video meeting, that a member of the plurality of members has yet to join the video meeting; receiving, from the participant or a different participant of the plurality of participants, a selection of a nudge control that requests that the member join the video meeting; and based at least in part on receiving the selection of the nudge control, one of: joining the member to the video meeting without the member taking affirmative action to join the video meeting; or sending a notification to the member indicating that the member has been invited to join the video meeting (0051 & 0053, where this, at least, teaches the joining limitation. See also: 0013). Both of the systems of Christensen and Chhabra are directed towards chat systems and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Christensen, to utilize providing chat reminders, as taught by Chhabra, in order to improves the system’s usability by ensuring that members are present for their desired conferences.
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christensen, in view of Dorner, in view of Svar, and in further view of Official Notice.
8. As for claims 6, 13, and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). However, Christensen did not explicitly state after the end of the video meeting, causing the thread to be inaccessible to non-participants of the video meeting. However, the examiner gives official notice that controlling access to online content was well known and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Christensen and Dorner, to utilize specific access restrictions as posted online content, in order to control who has access to the system as per business/financial considerations.
9. As for claims 7, 14, and 20, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). However, Christensen did not explicitly state determining that the video meeting occurred within the communication channel; and causing, after the end of the video meeting and via the communication channel, the thread to be accessible to non-participants of the video meeting that are included in the plurality of members. However, the examiner gives official notice that controlling access to online content was well known and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of the combination of Christensen and Dorner, to utilize specific access restrictions as posted online content, in order to control who has access to the system as per business/financial considerations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Sherkin et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2019/0044896 A1), 0019.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights