DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on February 27, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 1 and 11. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending. 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 Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 are maintained in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 11.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-20 are maintained in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 2/27/26 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues on p. 14 of the remarks that the examiner does not clearly articulate the abstract idea. Examiner disagrees and notes the abstract idea is “managing work unit records comprising work information, the work information describing units of work assigned within the environment to the users who are expected to accomplish one or more actions to complete the units of work and provides access to the work information of the work unit records via work unit pages of the work unit records, individual work unit pages including individual instances configured to initiate individual group meetings with individual groups of users, the work unit records including a first work unit record describing a first unit of work assigned to a first user, the work unit pages including a first work unit page associated with the first work unit record and obtaining user input information conveying user input, the user input comprising a selection of an instance on the first work unit page that initiates a group meeting with a group of users and obtaining user role information specifying a first role of the first user and a second role of a second user and responsive to the obtaining the user input information conveying the selection of the instance on the first work unit page and identifying the first user and the second user as part of the group of users associated with the group meeting, wherein the first user and the second user are identified based on the first role and the second role being part of a role hierarchy and identifying a set of work unit records associated with the group meeting, the set of work unit records associated with the group meeting including the work unit records of the units of work that i) were previously assigned to the first user and/or the second user, ii) are part of a common record hierarchy that includes the first work unit record, and iii) have dates that fall within a date range and generating an agenda for the group meeting by determining a set of agenda items, an individual agenda item corresponding to an individual work unit record identified as being associated with the group meeting, wherein the individual agenda item facilitates access to an individual work unit page of the individual work unit record.” That is a clear explanation and if anything is not articulate, examiner encourages applicant to be more specific then a general characterization. Applicant further argues on p. 15-16 that the reliance on certain methods of human activity is conclusory. Examiner disagrees and notes the explanation that the claims are certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the show managing a meeting between people because an agenda is organization of such a meeting. The abstract idea has more details that that and the claims have additional elements, but in terms of providing a rational, the relationship between people is shown because of the connection to meetings and the organization of that data is shown because of the management of such meetings. Applicant further argues on p. 17-18 of the remarks that the claimed systems are inherently rooted in technology. Examiner disagrees and notes that, at best, the claims are generally linked to a computing environment and the technology in the claims are tools used to implement the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the 101 rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues on p. 18 of the remarks that the 103 rejections are improper. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues on p. 18 of the remarks that the cited art does not teach identifying records that become part of a meeting agenda based on a selection of a user interface element in a work unit page of a work unit record. Examiner disagrees and notes that Motoyama shows at para [0104], "Alternatively, the document manager 116 may communicate with the mobile wireless device 106 to request the information that is currently stored on the mobile wireless device 106. As another alternative, the device manager 118 may communicate with the mobile wireless device 106 to request the information that is currently stored on the mobile wireless device 106. The document manager 116 then applies the one or more policies to determine the information on the mobile wireless device 106 that is to be rendered inaccessible. For example, suppose that the user is associated with authorization level 2. This may be assigned to the user based upon the user's position within a business organization. The document manager 116 determines that a particular electronic document having an assigned level of Level 1 is stored on the mobile wireless device 106. The document manager 116 indicates to device manager 118 that the particular electronic document on the mobile wireless device 106 is to be rendered inaccessible. The information on the mobile wireless device 106 that satisfies the one or more policies for the user is rendered inaccessible. Continuing with the prior example, the device management system 102 causes the particular electronic document to be deleted, encrypted, re-encrypted or otherwise rendered inaccessible. According to one embodiment of the invention, the device manager 118 causes information on the mobile wireless device 106 to be rendered inaccessible by signaling the mobile wireless device 106. The signal may indicate the particular action to be performed with respect to the information, for example, whether the information is to be deleted, encrypted, re-encrypted or otherwise rendered inaccessible." and shows at para [0159]-[0160], " If so, then in step 2412, the agenda is recorded. For example, the document manager 116 may add the agenda to the meeting record or report. In step 2414, a determination is made whether any supplemental information exists for the meeting and if so, then the supplemental information is added to the meeting record or report. For example, supplemental information may include decisions items agreed upon during the meeting and action items assigned, as discussed in further detail below. FIG. 25 depicts an example meeting record or report 2500 generated via the approach of FIG. 24. The meeting record or report 2500 includes information about the meeting that occurred, such as the date of the meeting, the attendees, documents used during the meeting, an agenda for the meeting and notes provided by the meeting attendees. The meeting report 2500 also includes decision items, which include information about decisions made during the meeting and action items, which include information about tasks assigned during the meeting. Decision items and action items are discussed in further detail below. The meeting record or report may include embedded links to the documents used during the meeting." where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that document manager that includes to links to electronic documents and makes decisions about supplemental information being added includes the action items assigned would be included in the embedded links to the documents used during the meeting. Examiner further notes that the user-selectable interface elements are not explicitly shown in Motoyama (although embedded links are discussed), these features are explicitly shown in the workspace shown in Gidipity at para [0035] and para [0046] explicitly shows selecting documents from the workspace UI by "UI 500 includes a summary of site contents (574) viewable by category such as documents, lists, discussions, etc. In the main portion shared documents (572) are listed. The list may include any content (e.g. documents, audio recordings, images, or even links to other sites). Information about each document such as date of last modification and modifier (or document owner) is also listed. When a particular document (e.g. 576) is selected, a drop-down menu 578 is provided with options to perform tasks on the document including initiating a meeting. Thus, a shared workspace participant may select one or more documents and initiate a meeting associated with those documents directly from the shared workspace UI. As discussed above, the meeting UI would then list the selected document(s) in its resources pane and provide access to the document(s) for participants in the meeting.". This is even shown to be obvious in Chegini at para [0090] where documents such as plans can be attached and linked in the collaborative tool. Applicant further argues on p. 19-20 that Chegini fails to show the amended language of common record hierarchy as the first work unit record. First, Examiner notes the claims are rejected based on a combination of references and that the Motoyama and Gudipaty combination shows applicant’s claims are obvious and Chegini is used to further show this amended language is obvious when combined with the Motoyama and Gudipaty combination. Moreover, para [0090] of Chegini shows that records such as documents that show the common hierarchy are accessible by the collaborative tool. Para [0084] of Chegini, for instance, shows "The plan management system can record and track, in substantially real time, users' actions and permit status. For example, the plan management system can track how many permits have not started the review process, the number of resubmits, the number of work in progress, or approved overall and/or by department. The plan management system can also track comment status by department (e.g., how many are open or closed), how many drawings have been accepted by department, and submittal counts by department. The plan management system can analyze the recorded information and generate reports in substantially real time, including graphs, reporting the foregoing information. For example, a report can be generated reporting permit count status for each status type for one or more periods (e.g., on a month by month basis) using a bar-type graph. Further, the plan management system can generate a report of current comment status by department, submittal counts by department, and drawings accepted by department. Example graphical reports are illustrated in FIG. 8. The recorded and reported information can be exported via one or more different formats, such in a CSV, RTF or DOC file, or other word processing, spreadsheet, or database document/file." which are work records associated with a common record hierarchy (the various approval process) that are linked and attached in the collaborative tool where it is obvious such documents could be the documents embedded and linked in the Motoyama and Gudipaty combination. Therefore, the 103 rejections are maintained.
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 clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (a system and method). Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1 and 11 recite the abstract idea of managing work unit records comprising work information, the work information describing units of work assigned within the environment to the users who are expected to accomplish one or more actions to complete the units of work and provides access to the work information of the work unit records via work unit pages of the work unit records, individual work unit pages including individual instances configured to initiate individual group meetings with individual groups of users, the work unit records including a first work unit record describing a first unit of work assigned to a first user, the work unit pages including a first work unit page associated with the first work unit record and obtaining user input information conveying user input, the user input comprising a selection of an instance on the first work unit page that initiates a group meeting with a group of users and obtaining user role information specifying a first role of the first user and a second role of a second user and responsive to the obtaining the user input information conveying the selection of the instance on the first work unit page and identifying the first user and the second user as part of the group of users associated with the group meeting, wherein the first user and the second user are identified based on the first role and the second role being part of a role hierarchy and identifying a set of work unit records associated with the group meeting, the set of work unit records associated with the group meeting including the work unit records of the units of work that i) were previously assigned to the first user and/or the second user, ii) are part of a common record hierarchy that includes the first work unit record, and iii) have dates that fall within a date range and generating an agenda for the group meeting by determining a set of agenda items, an individual agenda item corresponding to an individual work unit record identified as being associated with the group meeting, wherein the individual agenda item facilitates access to an individual work unit page of the individual work unit record. The claims are directed to a type of generating an agenda for a group meeting based on identified data. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. The claims are a type of organizing human activity because the claims show managing a meeting between people because an agenda is organization of such a meeting. Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as establishing one or more network connections between a server hosting a virtual collaboration environment and remotely located client computing platforms through which users interact with the virtual collaboration environment via instances of a user interface, a user-selectable interface element, a server, effectuating communication of meeting information from the server to a remotely located client computing platform, the meeting information facilitating presentation of a meeting agenda window at the remotely located client computing platform, the meeting agenda window displaying the agenda and the set of agenda items, wherein selection of the individual agenda item in the meeting agenda window causes the individual work unit page to be presented by the remotely located client computing platform, a system configured to generate an agenda for a group meeting, the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: establish one or more network connections between a server hosting a virtual collaboration environment and remotely located client computing platforms through which users interact with the virtual collaboration environment via a user interface) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply 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 claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as establishing one or more network connections between a server hosting a virtual collaboration environment and remotely located client computing platforms through which users interact with the virtual collaboration environment via instances of a user interface, a user-selectable interface element, a server, effectuating communication of meeting information from the server to a remotely located client computing platform, the meeting information facilitating presentation of a meeting agenda window at the remotely located client computing platform, the meeting agenda window displaying the agenda and the set of agenda items, wherein selection of the individual agenda item in the meeting agenda window causes the individual work unit page to be presented by the remotely located client computing platform, a system configured to generate an agenda for a group meeting, the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions to: establish one or more network connections between a server hosting a virtual collaboration environment and remotely located client computing platforms through which users interact with the virtual collaboration environment via a user interface (as evidenced by para [0018]-[0020], [0060]-[0062], [0069]-[0076] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-20 also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing obtain scheduling information for the first user and the second user, the scheduling information including a set of calendar entries; and determine a meeting time for the group meeting based on the scheduling information and wherein accessibility to provide the user input to initiate the group meeting is limited to the users of a given role and wherein identifying the set of work unit records associated with the group meeting includes: determining the date range; and identifying the work unit records having due dates that fall within the date range and wherein identifying the set of work unit records associated with the group meeting is further based on user selection of the work unit records for inclusion in the group meeting; and responsive to obtaining the user selection of the work unit records for the inclusion in the group meeting: specify, within individual work unit records, individual values of a meeting parameter to reflect the inclusion in the group meeting and wherein identifying the group of users associated is based on the first user and the second user being identified for inclusion in the group meeting, specify, within individual user records, individual values of a meeting parameter that reflect the inclusion in the group meeting and wherein identifying the group of users associated with the group meeting is based on the first user and the second user being part of a same team and/or working on a same project and generate a meeting-specific work unit record for the group meeting, wherein the meeting-specific work unit record includes agenda information and is assigned to the first user and wherein the role hierarchy specifies a superiority of the first role relative to the second role. Dependent claims 6 and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as wherein the user interface further includes an assigned- work page displaying a work unit list identifying a second set of work unit records assigned to the first user (as evidenced by para [0018]-[0020], [0060]-[0062], [0069]-[0076] of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyama (US 2013/0060593 A1) in view of Gudipity et al. (US 2009/0192845 A1) (hereinafter Gudipity) in view of Chegini et al. (US 20140033069 A1) (hereinafter Chegini).
Claims 1 and 11:
Motoyama, as shown, discloses the following limitations of claims 1 and 11:
A system (and corresponding method) configured to generate an agenda for a group meeting (see para [0159], "a determination is made whether an agenda exists for the meeting. If so, then in step 2412, the agenda is recorded. For example, the document manager 116 may add the agenda to the meeting record or report."), the system comprising: one or more physical processors configured by machine-readable instructions (see para [0072], showing computer framework ) to: establish one or more network connections between a server hosting a virtual collaboration environment and remotely located client computing platforms through which users interact with the virtual collaboration environment via instances of a user interface, the virtual collaboration environment managing work unit records comprising work information, the work information describing units of work assigned within the virtual collaboration environment to the users who are expected to accomplish one or more actions to complete the units of work (see para [0007], "The meeting system may automatically generate meeting record data at the conclusion of a meeting and send the meeting record data to the meeting participants. The meeting record data may include any information about the meeting, including data identifying how decision items were resolved and to whom a task was assigned. The meeting system may also be configured to automatically parse the action items at the conclusion of a meeting to determine to whom a task is assigned. The meeting system may then automatically update the schedule of the person to include task information associated with the task. For example, the task may be added to a to-do list and automatic reminders may be scheduled to remind the person of the tasks due date. If an action item or decision has not been updated by the end of a meeting, the meeting management system generates a flag to notify a user that the item has not been addressed." and see para [0090], "Task and target dates 3206 may generally comprise any data that identifies tasks for one or more users. For example, task and target dates 3206 may include without limitation a description of the task, the target date for the task to be completed, a flag to indicate whether the task has been completed. Communication control 3210 may comprise any mechanism to process incoming and outgoing communications for one or more users. Examples include, without limitation, email, phone, voicemail, voice over internet protocol (VoIP), and instant messaging systems." and see para [0155], "There may be situations where content is created during a meeting. For example, as previously described herein, mobile wireless devices may be configured to share "boards" on which content, such as drawings, notes, etc., may be created in a collaborative manner among the meeting participants. According to one embodiment of the invention, mobile wireless devices are configured to transmit content created during a meeting to the device management system 102. For example, suppose that during a meeting between users of mobile wireless device 106 and 108 the participants create a drawing and notes using a shared board, as previously described herein. One or more of the mobile wireless devices 106 and 108 are configured to, at the conclusion of the meeting, generate meeting data that reflects the drawing and notes created during the meeting. For example, the mobile wireless device of the meeting organizer may create the meeting data. Alternatively, the meeting organizer may designate another mobile wireless device to create the meeting data. The meeting data is transmitted to the device management system 102. The creation and transmission to the device management system 102 of meeting data is optional and may be performed using various security measures to protect the meeting data. For example, the meeting data may be encrypted and/or transmitted to the device management system 102 using a secure communications link." And see para [0169], “FIG. 30 depicts an example display that may be shown and updated during a meeting. The display includes the outline, decision, and action items previously submitted by the user via the meeting planning form, such as depicted in FIG. 28. The display is presented to one or more network devices that are connected to meeting system 122 and are associated with participants that are authorized to attend the meeting. If there are multiple pages associated with the outline, the meeting organizer may control which page is displayed. If the meeting organizer changes the page that is displayed, the change will be synchronized across all participating devices so that the participating devices will display the same presentation data.” and see para [0126]), wherein the user interface provides access to the work information of the work unit records via work unit pages of the work unit records (see par [0064], "The device management system receives, from the mobile wireless device, identification data that identifies one or more documents or information that will be made available to the plurality of participants via the plurality of mobile wireless devices. The meeting support system determines whether the plurality of participants is authorized to access the one or more electronic documents or information.")…the work unit records including a work unit record describing a unit of work assigned to a first user, the work unit pages including a first work unit page associated with the first work unit record (see para [0104], "Alternatively, the document manager 116 may communicate with the mobile wireless device 106 to request the information that is currently stored on the mobile wireless device 106. As another alternative, the device manager 118 may communicate with the mobile wireless device 106 to request the information that is currently stored on the mobile wireless device 106. The document manager 116 then applies the one or more policies to determine the information on the mobile wireless device 106 that is to be rendered inaccessible. For example, suppose that the user is associated with authorization level 2. This may be assigned to the user based upon the user's position within a business organization. The document manager 116 determines that a particular electronic document having an assigned level of Level 1 is stored on the mobile wireless device 106. The document manager 116 indicates to device manager 118 that the particular electronic document on the mobile wireless device 106 is to be rendered inaccessible. The information on the mobile wireless device 106 that satisfies the one or more policies for the user is rendered inaccessible. Continuing with the prior example, the device management system 102 causes the particular electronic document to be deleted, encrypted, re-encrypted or otherwise rendered inaccessible. According to one embodiment of the invention, the device manager 118 causes information on the mobile wireless device 106 to be rendered inaccessible by signaling the mobile wireless device 106. The signal may indicate the particular action to be performed with respect to the information, for example, whether the information is to be deleted, encrypted, re-encrypted or otherwise rendered inaccessible." and see para [0159]-[0160], " If so, then in step 2412, the agenda is recorded. For example, the document manager 116 may add the agenda to the meeting record or report. In step 2414, a determination is made whether any supplemental information exists for the meeting and if so, then the supplemental information is added to the meeting record or report. For example, supplemental information may include decisions items agreed upon during the meeting and action items assigned, as discussed in further detail below. FIG. 25 depicts an example meeting record or report 2500 generated via the approach of FIG. 24. The meeting record or report 2500 includes information about the meeting that occurred, such as the date of the meeting, the attendees, documents used during the meeting, an agenda for the meeting and notes provided by the meeting attendees. The meeting report 2500 also includes decision items, which include information about decisions made during the meeting and action items, which include information about tasks assigned during the meeting. Decision items and action items are discussed in further detail below. The meeting record or report may include embedded links to the documents used during the meeting." where it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that document manager that includes to links to electronic documents and makes decisions about supplemental information being added includes the action items assigned would be included in the embedded links to the documents used during the meeting.);
obtain, by the server, user input information conveying user input into the user interface, the user input…that initiates a group meeting with a group of users (see para [0167]-[0168], "When the user chooses the time and dates, the form is displayed for the input by the user. If the user previously filled in all or part of the items, those are displayed. The meeting planning form may be displayed to the user in response to the user selecting a scheduled meeting from a calendar or in response to the user scheduling a meeting...In step 2904, the meeting planning form obtains outline, decision, and action item information from the meeting planning form, as submitted by the user. In step 2906, meeting system 112 stores outline, decision, and action item planning data. The meeting system 122 links the planning information with meeting information, such as the date, time, location, and participants of the meeting data. Thus, meeting system 122 may automatically cause display of the outline, decision, and action items to one or more participants as the meeting begins.");
obtain user role information specifying a first role of the first user and a second role of a second user (see para [0143], "the meeting organizer may change the meeting attendees, e.g., by excluding from the meeting one or more users who are not authorized to access the documents. Alternatively, the meeting organizer may change the access rights required to access one or more of the documents and/or change the authorization of one or more of the users" and see para [146], "The user may specify an agenda, organizer, key persons, additional persons, date range, and duration for the meeting.");
generate, by the server, an agenda for the group meeting by determining a set of agenda items, an individual agenda item corresponding to an individual work unit record identified as being associated with the group meeting, wherein the individual agenda item facilitates access to an individual work unit page of the individual work unit record (see para [0007], where outline can be considered equivalent to agenda and see para [0159], "a determination is made whether an agenda exists for the meeting. If so, then in step 2412, the agenda is recorded. For example, the document manager 116 may add the agenda to the meeting record or report.” and see para [0168], "the meeting planning form obtains outline, decision, and action item information from the meeting planning form, as submitted by the user. In step 2906, meeting system 112 stores outline, decision, and action item planning data." and Fig 28, where action items show "who" and see para [0064], "The meeting support system determines whether the plurality of participants is authorized to access the one or more electronic documents or information. This may include, for example, determining whether the plurality of participants have sufficient access rights to satisfy one or more access policies that apply to the one or more electronic documents or information...This may include, for example, determining whether the plurality of participants have sufficient access rights to satisfy one or more access policies that apply to the one or more electronic documents or information. If the meeting support system determines that any of the participants are not authorized to access any of the electronic documents or information, the meeting support system notifies the meeting organizer. The device management system may also include a meeting session management system that is configured to share information among the plurality of mobile wireless devices. More particularly, information entered via one or more of the mobile wireless devices, e.g., via a graphical user interface, is shared with the other mobile wireless devices of the meeting participants." and see para [0129], "During the arrangement of a meeting (see FIGS. 18, 21A-21D, and 26 and the accompanying description), the device management system 102 determines whether the planned participants of a meeting are authorized to access documents and/or information that will be made available to meeting participants." and see para [0169], "Updating access may be restricted to a single participant, such as the meeting organizer, a group of participants, such as the key participants, or may be permitted by any participant attending the meeting." see para [0170], "The action item and decision items that are presented during the meeting may be dynamically updated at any time. For example, after a decision has been agreed upon, a participant may select a particular decision item and add information identifying how the particular decision item was resolved during the meeting. As another example, the action items may be updated to reflect a task assignment. Referring to FIG. 30, the "What", "By When" and "Who" fields may be updated at any time during the meeting. The user may have intentionally left one or more of these fields blank in the meeting planning preparation process. The other fields are automatically populated with information the user specified via the meeting planning form depicted in FIG. 28 for display during the meeting. GUI elements may be used to facilitate dynamic item updates during the meeting. For example, the "Who" section of Action items may include drop down buttons where the participants of the meeting are shown, so the meeting organizer does not need to type in the name to assign the action item. Alternatively, the drop down button may show any person with the corporation, regardless of whether they are a participant of the meeting. Thus, the action item may be assigned to a participant of the meeting or a person who is not attending the meeting. For example, supervisors within a corporation attending a meeting may assign action items to employees that are not present at the meeting. Additional decision items and action items, not included in the meeting planning form, may be added during the meeting by selecting the corresponding "Add Row" buttons depicted in FIG. 30, although the GUI may vary from implementation to implementation." and see para [0171] "Meeting system 122 coordinates the assigned action items with corporate communication and scheduling system 120. Accordingly action item and other meeting information may be automatically and seamlessly be integrated into a user's schedule. FIG. 31 is a flow diagram 3100 that depicts an approach for extracting and setting up task information, according to an embodiment. In step 3102, meeting system 122 extracts action item related information. For example, meeting system 122 may automatically parse the action item data at the conclusion of a meeting to determine to whom a task is assigned. In step 3104, meeting system 122 sets up the tasks to be performed with the target date for each person that has been assigned a task. For instance, meeting system 122 may send the action item information, including data identifying the person who is assigned the task, the target date for completion of the task, and a description of the task, to corporate communication and scheduling system 120. In response, corporate communication and scheduling system 120 updates the schedule of the person to whom the task is assigned by adding the task to the person's schedule. Adding the task to the person's schedule may include, but is not limited to, setting periodic or other automatic reminders to remind the person of the tasks due date, adding the task description to the calendar on the date that it is due, and adding the task to a to-do list for the person."); and
effectuate communication of meeting information from the server to a remotely located client computing platform, the meeting information facilitating presentation of a meeting agenda window at the remotely located client computing platform, the meeting agenda window displaying the agenda and the set of agenda items, wherein selection of the individual agenda item in the meeting agenda window causes the individual work unit page to be presented by the remotely located client computing platform (see para [0169], "FIG. 30 depicts an example display that may be shown and updated during a meeting. The display includes the outline, decision, and action items previously submitted by the user via the meeting planning form, such as depicted in FIG. 28. The display is presented to one or more network devices that are connected to meeting system 122 and are associated with participants that are authorized to attend the meeting. If there are multiple pages associated with the outline, the meeting organizer may control which page is displayed. If the meeting organizer changes the page that is displayed, the change will be synchronized across all participating devices so that the participating devices will display the same presentation data. The decision items and action items that are displayed may be updated at any point during the meeting. Updating access may be restricted to a single participant, such as the meeting organizer, a group of participants, such as the key participants, or may be permitted by any participant attending the meeting."), the meeting agenda window displaying the individual sets of agenda items for the individual agendas, wherein selection of the individual agenda items in the meeting agenda window facilitates access to the corresponding ones of the work unit records by presenting individual work unit pages of the corresponding ones of the work unit records (see para [0169], "If there are multiple pages associated with the outline, the meeting organizer may control which page is displayed. If the meeting organizer changes the page that is displayed, the change will be synchronized across all participating devices so that the participating devices will display the same presentation data. The decision items and action items that are displayed may be updated at any point during the meeting. Updating access may be restricted to a single participant, such as the meeting organizer, a group of participants, such as the key participants, or may be permitted by any participant attending the meeting. The display depicted in FIG. 30 does not include a "submit" button as the updated information will be taken and used to generate meeting record data automatically when the meeting ends. For example, the outline, decision, and action times may be recorded in step 2414 in FIG. 24 to be added in the meeting record data. If a decision or action item has not been updated before the meeting is completed, meeting system 122 may prompt a participant, such as the meeting organizer to update the items or may otherwise generate a flag to notify one or more participants that an item has been left unaddressed before the closing of the meeting. For example, the system may generate a flag if a decision has been left unresolved or if an action item has not been assigned by the meeting's end. The user may then choose to update the item or close the meeting without addressing the item.").
Motoyama, however, does not specifically disclose individual work unit pages including individual instances of a user-selectable interface element configured to initiate individual group meetings with individual groups of users. In analogous art, Gudipity discloses the following limitations:
individual work unit pages including individual instances of a user-selectable interface element configured to initiate individual group meetings with individual groups of users (see para [0005], "Embodiments are directed to integrating real time collaboration experiences such as online meetings with shared workspace(s). In a system according to embodiments, meetings may be organized, initiated, and recorded through a workspace. Relevant documents and content may be made available automatically for the online meeting." and see para [0034], " The integrated online meeting may be initiated from a variety of points within the shared workspace. Any component application such as scheduling application 236 may be configured to select documents within the shared workspace, prepare a meeting invitation automatically configuring meeting parameters (invitees, subject, links, etc.), and initiating the meeting. Alternatively, the meeting may be initiated directly from a shared workspace user interface where the shared content is listed (as discussed below in conjunction with FIG. 5)."), the work unit records including a work unit record describing a unit of work assigned to a first user, the work unit pages including a first work unit page associated with the first work unit record (see para [0046], "UI 500 includes a summary of site contents (574) viewable by category such as documents, lists, discussions, etc. In the main portion shared documents (572) are listed. The list may include any content (e.g. documents, audio recordings, images, or even links to other sites). Information about each document such as date of last modification and modifier (or document owner) is also listed. When a particular document (e.g. 576) is selected, a drop-down menu 578 is provided with options to perform tasks on the document including initiating a meeting. Thus, a shared workspace participant may select one or more documents and initiate a meeting associated with those documents directly from the shared workspace UI. As discussed above, the meeting UI would then list the selected document(s) in its resources pane and provide access to the document(s) for participants in the meeting.");
comprising a selection of an instance of the user- selectable interface element on the first work unit page (see para [0005], "Embodiments are directed to integrating real time collaboration experiences such as online meetings with shared workspace(s). In a system according to embodiments, meetings may be organized, initiated, and recorded through a workspace. Relevant documents and content may be made available automatically for the online meeting." and see para [0034], " The integrated online meeting may be initiated from a variety of points within the shared workspace. Any component application such as scheduling application 236 may be configured to select documents within the shared workspace, prepare a meeting invitation automatically configuring meeting parameters (invitees, subject, links, etc.), and initiating the meeting. Alternatively, the meeting may be initiated directly from a shared workspace user interface where the shared content is listed (as discussed below in conjunction with FIG. 5).")
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Motoyoma with Gudipity because enabling an initiating of the meeting via GUI helps simply and make online meetings more efficient (see Gudipity, para [0001]-[0003]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the system for real time collaboration experiences with online workspaces as taught by Gudipity in the meeting planner system of Motoyoma, 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Motoyoma with Gudipity, however, do not specifically disclose responsive to obtaining the user input information conveying the selection of the instance of the user-selectable interface element on the work unit page: identify, by the server, the first user and the second user as part of the group of users associated with the group meeting, wherein the first user and the second user are identified based on the first role and the second role being part of a role hierarchy. In analogous art, Chegini discloses the following limitations:
responsive to obtaining the user input information conveying the selection of the instance of the user-selectable interface element on the first work unit page: identify, by the server, the first user and the second user as part of the group of users associated with the group meeting, wherein the first user and the second user are identified based on the first role and the second role being part of a role hierarchy (see para [0062], "The tools may include drawing tools (e.g., to draw lines and shapes, add objects from a library, etc.), analysis tools, and file tools (e.g., save, open, PDF export, download, overlay, etc.). A summary pane 206 displays summary information regarding the displayed plan sheet, including for example, a unique plan identifier (e.g., a plan review number and/or physical address associated with the construction project), a drawing sheet number of the displayed plan sheet, a description (previously entered by a user), a submittal number (which may be used to manage/group plan sheets which have been corrected and resubmitted for subsequent plan check), department information (e.g., of departments or other organizational entities that are tasked with performing a plan review), version number, and application contact." and see para [0077]-[0078], " FIG. 6 illustrates a table of lists describing example uses for various items of metadata, although the metadata can be used for other purposes as well. As illustrated, metadata includes a category (which may be used to manage, group and sort a given plan reviewer's comments and corrections, such as those included in a correction list). In addition, a code table is provided, which identifies code tables (e.g., IRC (International Residential Code), CBC (California Building Code), etc.) used with a relevant agency, such as a governmental plan check agency. The metadata may also include a contact method, a construction type code (e.g., as specified in a code table), a contact method for the applicant/owner, a department identifier for a user or plan, acceptable drawing sheet dimensions as specified by a relevant governmental agency, a list of industry standard disciplines, a compass direction associated with an address for the property corresponding to the plan, disposition of a comment (e.g., open, closed, etc.), document type (corresponding to a value for an incoming file and/or attachment received by the plan check system, and impact, which defines the importance designation for a plan reviewer comment (e.g., open, closed, etc.), and occupancy codes as published by an agency (e.g., industry code as published by the CBC in 2012). The metadata may also include a permit priority (e.g., agency-specific terms reflecting the priority of the permit application and/or expected turnaround by the reviewing agency (e.g., overnight, high, normal, etc.), permit type (e.g., agency specific terminology: roof, pool, electrical, etc.), project type (e.g., agency specific terminology: residential, commercial, zoning), street type (e.g., commonly used street type designations, such as avenue, boulevard, zoning, etc.), sub-category (e.g., an agency list and sort order of comments that will be used on the correction list), and submittal (e.g., agency specific permit submittal language (e.g., 1.sup.st, 2.sup.nd, 3.sup.rd, etc.). A system list may include access (e.g., manager user roles and system security roles), permit status (e.g., defines current workflow status of a permit record, such as open, on hold, withdrawn, ready to issue, issued and resubmit, etc.), and drawing status (e.g., defining the current workflow review status of a drawing, such as not started, WIP (work in progress), resubmit, and approved)." and Fig 6A, showing contact roles and see para [0006], where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that building design documents are work unit records that function in a similar way to meeting documents or agendas); and
identify, by the server, a set of work unit records associated with the group meeting, the set of work unit records associated with the group meeting including the work unit records of the units of work that i) were previously assigned to the first user and/or the second user, ii) are part of a common record hierarchy that includes the first work unit record, and iii) have dates that fall within a date range (see para [0085], "As discussed above, certain embodiments of the system provide extensive search facilities. As illustrated in FIG. 9A, a search user interface enables a user to search for comments based on some or all of the following criteria: by department, disposition/status, reviewer ID, sheet number, comment type, discipline or project type (e.g., electrical, plumbing, structural, etc.), comment text, category, sub-category, submittal identifier, record number range, reviewer firm, comment date range, etc. Thus, using the illustrated user interface, a plan checker can search for and view comments placed by any user in any department (unless otherwise restricted by an administrator). The user interface enables, for example, a department to group and sort their correction lists by categories and subcategories. An administrator can specify which users may edit, add, and/or delete comments (e.g., based on user roles)." and see para [0090], showing that the search results shows attachments such as plan sheets, comments and external documents which can be considered work unit records).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Motoyoma and Gudipity with Chegini because enabling identification of users being part of a role hierarchy enables more effective integration with projects that involved different types of approval or agencies or commenting (see Chegini, para [0002]-[0004]).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the method for management and processing of electronic documents as taught by Chegini in the Motoyoma and Gudipity combination, 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 2 and 12:
Further, Motoyoma discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to: obtain scheduling information for the first user and the second user, the scheduling information including a set of calendar entries (see para [0005], "The meeting system may receive input from a user that selects a time form the plurality of times. For instance, the user may select a time slot form those displayed as available on the calendar. In response to receiving the input from the user that selects the time, the meeting system generates a meeting invitation to invite the participants to attend a meeting at the selected time. The meeting invitation may be sent to only the participants that the meeting system determines are available to attend or may be sent to all participants identified by the participant data." and see para [164], "In step 2612, meeting system 122 causes display of a calendar that includes the dates, times, locations, and room information where the meeting may be held. For example, the meeting options may be presented similar to the meeting option presentation depicted in FIG. 21B. The meeting options may be ranked based on the number of participants that are available to attend the meeting. Meeting times at which more participants are available to attend are ranked higher than meeting times at which fewer participants are available to attend. As used herein, "available to attend" refers to either a person available to attend the meeting at the physical location of the meeting or a person available to attend the meeting remotely through a network device, such as a tablet, laptop, or desktop computer." and see para [0165]); and determine a meeting time for the group meeting based on the scheduling information (see para [0005], showing searching scheduling information for the identified participants to determine possible meeting times/dates where it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the selected participants constitutes a group).
Claims 3 and 13:
Further, Motoyama discloses the following limitations:
wherein accessibility to provide the user input to initiate the group meeting is limited to the users of a given role (see para [0139]-[0142], showing the meeting organizer has the ability to proceed with the meeting or not)
Claims 4 and 14:
Further, Motoyoma discloses the following limitations:
wherein identifying the set of work unit records associated with the group meeting includes: determining the date range (see para [0171], "meeting system 122 may automatically parse the action item data at the conclusion of a meeting to determine to whom a task is assigned. In step 3104, meeting system 122 sets up the tasks to be performed with the target date for each person that has been assigned a task. For instance, meeting system 122 may send the action item information, including data identifying the person who is assigned the task, the target date for completion of the task, and a description of the task, to corporate communication and scheduling system 120. In response, corporate communication and scheduling system 120 updates the schedule of the person to whom the task is assigned by adding the task to the person's schedule. Adding the task to the person's schedule may include, but is not limited to, setting periodic or other automatic reminders to remind the person of the tasks due date, adding the task description to the calendar on the date that it is due, and adding the task to a to-do list for the person." where a target date for the task can be a considered a range from that moment until the target date); and
identifying the work unit records having due dates that fall within the date range (see para [0171], where assigning shows identifying).
Claims 5 and 15:
Further, Motoyoma discloses the following limitations:
wherein identifying the set of work unit records associated with the group meeting is further based on user selection of the work unit records for inclusion in the group meeting (see para [0007], "In response to receiving the user input, the meeting system presents, to the user through the graphical user interface, a meeting planning form. The meeting system receives, through the meeting planning form, planning data that includes decision items and action items. A decision item indicates decisions to be made during the particular scheduled meeting, and an action item indicates tasks to be assigned during the particular scheduled meeting."); and
the one or more physical processors are further configured by the machine- readable instructions to: responsive to obtaining the user selection of the work unit records for the inclusion in the group meeting: specify, within individual work unit records, individual values of a meeting parameter to reflect the inclusion in the group meeting (see para [0007], "The meeting system may also be configured to automatically parse the action items at the conclusion of a meeting to determine to whom a task is assigned. The meeting system may then automatically update the schedule of the person to include task information associated with the task. For example, the task may be added to a to-do list and automatic reminders may be scheduled to remind the person of the tasks due date. If an action item or decision has not been updated by the end of a meeting, the meeting management system generates a flag to notify a user that the item has not been addressed.")
Claims 6 and 16:
Further, Motoyoma discloses the following limitations:
wherein the user interface further includes an assigned-work page displaying a work unit list identifying a second set of work unit records assigned to the first user (see para [0007], "The meeting system receives user input that selects a particular scheduled meeting of the one or more scheduled meetings. In response to receiving the user input, the meeting system presents, to the user through the graphical user interface, a meeting planning form. The meeting system receives, through the meeting planning form, planning data that includes decision items and action items. A decision item indicates decisions to be made during the particular scheduled meeting, and an action item indicates tasks to be assigned during the particular scheduled meeting. The planning data may further include outline data that indicates topics to be discussed during the particular scheduled meeting. The outline data, decision items, and action items may automatically be presented to one or more participants upon the meeting starting or at any time during the meeting. If one or more participants are attending the meeting remotely using a network device, then the information may be concurrently displayed across all participant devices. The decision items and action items may be dynamically updated during the meeting. For example, the meeting system may receive data that indicates how a decision item was resolved during a meeting or to whom a task is assigned during the meeting. The meeting system may automatically generate meeting record data at the conclusion of a meeting and send the meeting record data to the meeting participants. The meeting record data may include any information about the meeting, including data identifying how decision items were resolved and to whom a task was assigned. The meeting system may also be configured to automatically parse the action items at the conclusion of a meeting to determine to whom a task is assigned." and Fig 28 where the meeting record with the assignments can be considered a second set of work unit records given broadest reasonable interpretation).
Claims 7 and 17:
Further, Motoyama discloses the following limitations:
wherein identifying the group of users associated is based on the first user and the second user being identified for inclusion in the group meeting (see para [0006], "the meeting system receives key participant data that identifies one or more key participants that must attend a meeting... In response to receiving this information, the meeting system automatically determines one or more times, within the possible range of dates, at which each key participant of the one or more key participants is available to attend the meeting."); and
the one or more physical processors are further configured by the machine- readable instructions to: specify, within individual user records, individual values of a meeting parameter that reflect the inclusion in the group meeting (see para [0006], where the meeting time can be considered a meeting parameter)
Claims 8 and 18:
Further, Motoyama discloses the following limitations:
wherein identifying the group of users associated with the group meeting is based on the first user and the second user being part of a same team and/or working on a same project (see para [0079], "Attributes may be specific to a particular business organization, sub-group within an organization, employee level or individual employees. For example, a policy may specify that only executives at a specified level or higher may remove classified documents from a building. As another example, a policy may specify that only users who are members of a particular team or project may remove from the building information associated with a particular project.")
Claims 9 and 19:
Further, Motoyama discloses the following limitations:
wherein the one or more physical processors are further configured by the machine-readable instructions to generate a meeting-specific work unit record for the group meeting, wherein the meeting-specific work unit record includes agenda information and is assigned to the first user (see para [0007], "The meeting system receives user input that selects a particular scheduled meeting of the one or more scheduled meetings. In response to receiving the user input, the meeting system presents, to the user through the graphical user interface, a meeting planning form. The meeting system receives, through the meeting planning form, planning data that includes decision items and action items. A decision item indicates decisions to be made during the particular scheduled meeting, and an action item indicates tasks to be assigned during the particular scheduled meeting. The planning data may further include outline data that indicates topics to be discussed during the particular scheduled meeting. The outline data, decision items, and action items may automatically be presented to one or more participants upon the meeting starting or at any time during the meeting. If one or more participants are attending the meeting remotely using a network device, then the information may be concurrently displayed across all participant devices. The decision items and action items may be dynamically updated during the meeting. For example, the meeting system may receive data that indicates how a decision item was resolved during a meeting or to whom a task is assigned during the meeting. The meeting system may automatically generate meeting record data at the conclusion of a meeting and send the meeting record data to the meeting participants. The meeting record data may include any information about the meeting, including data identifying how decision items were resolved and to whom a task was assigned. The meeting system may also be configured to automatically parse the action items at the conclusion of a meeting to determine to whom a task is assigned." and Fig 28)
Claims 10 and 20:
Further, Motoyama discloses the following limitations:
wherein the role hierarchy specifies a superiority of the first role relative to the second role (see para [0078], " Attributes may be specific to a particular business organization, sub-group within an organization, employee level or individual employees. For example, a policy may specify that only executives at a specified level or higher may remove classified documents from a building. As another example, a policy may specify that only users who are members of a particular team or project may remove from the building information associated with a particular project.")
Examiner notes this limitation is also shown to be obvious by Chegini at para [0085] where users that have been given the ability to edit, add or delete comments based on roles can be considered superior to those without such access. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the method for management and processing of electronic documents as taught by Chegini in the Motoyoma and Gudipity combination, 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, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sitrick et al. (US 2012/0284646 A1), a system comprised of mapping logic defining a mapped structure for storing a plurality of separate layers of data in a plurality of data layers; and, storage for storing layer data in selected ones of said plurality of separate data layers, responsive to the mapping logic where the mapping logic associates user image data for each of at least two of the plurality of users for storage as respective said layer data in a respective one of the separate data layers
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is (571)270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM to 5 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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 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.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624