DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed 11/10/2025.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/24/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-21 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on page 12 that the amended claim is not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG) and under step 2A of the analysis of claims per the Alice framework, if a claim limitation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Applicant submits on page 13 that the claim is integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Applicant submits on page 14 of the remarks that the claim adds significantly more than any abstract idea. Examiner notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-2, 4-21, the independent claims (claims 1, 8 and 15) are directed, in part, to a system, a method and a computer-readable medium for providing notifications indicating meeting activity of users. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-2, 4-7, 21 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process, claims 8-14 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine, and claims 15-20 are directed to a computer readable storage medium which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes managing personal behavior or interactions between people.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to providing in-meeting notifications indicating activity of a user having a customized schedule for a meeting, the method comprising: accessing, during an ongoing communication session corresponding to the meeting, a primary calendar storing a primary meeting object defining a duration of a primary meeting; accessing, during the ongoing communication session corresponding to the meeting, a secondary calendar storing a secondary meeting object that is at least in part overlapping with a time of the primary meeting object, the secondary meeting object indicating a personalized interval for the user that is shorter than the duration defined in the primary meeting object, the secondary meeting object defining a start time and an end time of the personalized interval, wherein the primary calendar and the secondary calendar both include the user monitoring, by the use of one or more backend data structures of the data processing system, a running time of a primary meeting of the primary meeting object to determine that the running time is within a threshold relative to the start time or the end time specified in the secondary meeting object; updating the one or more backend data structures to reflect the running time of the primary meeting and a current state of the user to determine that the threshold has been reached; and in response to determining that the running time of the primary meeting is within the threshold relative to the start time or the end time specified in the secondary meeting object, causing the data processing system to generate and display, in a meeting user interface, a visual indicator associated an identifier of the user indicating that the user will arrive at or leave the meeting. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: data processing system, graphical element, system, processing units, computer readable storage medium, computer-readable storage medium, user interface. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figure 1 and related text and [0091-0093] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “it should be appreciated that the logical operations described herein are implemented (1) as a sequence of computer implemented acts or program modules running on a computing system and/or (2) as interconnected machine logic circuits or circuit modules within the computing system. The implementation is a matter of choice dependent on the performance and other requirements of the computing system. Accordingly, the logical operations described herein are referred to variously as states, operations, structural devices, acts, or modules. These operations, structural devices, acts, and modules may be implemented in software, in firmware, in special purpose digital logic, and any combination thereof. For example, the operations of the routine are described herein as being implemented, at least in part, by an application, component and/or circuit, such as a device module that can be included in any one of the memory components disclosed herein, including but not limited to RAM. In some configurations, the device module can be a dynamically linked library (DLL), a statically linked library, functionality enabled by an application programing interface (API), a compiled program, an interpreted program, a script or any other executable set of instructions. Data, such as input data or a signal from a sensor, received by the device module can be stored in a data structure in one or more memory components. The data can be retrieved from the data structure by addressing links or references to the data structure. Although the following illustration refers to the components depicted in the present application, it can be appreciated that the operations of the routine may be also implemented in many other ways. For example, the routine may be implemented, at least in part, by a processor or circuit of another remote computer (which can be a server) or a local processor or circuit of a local computer (which can be a client device receiving a message or a client device sending the message). Any aspect of the routine, which can include the generation of a prompt, communication of any of the messages with the prompt to an NLP algorithm, use of an NLP algorithm, or a display of a result generated by an NLP algorithm, can be performed on either a device sending a message, a device receiving a message, or on a server managing communication of the messages for a thread. In addition, one or more of the operations of the routine may alternatively or additionally be implemented, at least in part, by a chipset working alone or in conjunction with other software modules. Any service, circuit or application suitable for providing input data indicating the state of any device may be used in operations described herein.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2020/0302344 (hereinafter; Just).
Regarding claims 1/8/15, Just discloses:
A method, executed by a data processing system; A system; A computer-readable storage medium, for providing in-meeting notifications indicating activity of a user having a customized schedule for a meeting, (Just [0056] discloses In different implementations, it can be appreciated that the selected meeting overlaps or otherwise conflicts with a prior reservation for the room. In other words, the selected meeting may have a duration that extends into a time frame in which the second room has been already booked. In such cases, the system can notify the second user of the conflict, either on the outside interface panel, or on one of the displays in the room. In some implementations, this notification can occur once the user makes his meeting selection; [0080] discloses meeting notifications.) the method comprising: accessing, during an ongoing communication session corresponding to the meeting, a primary calendar storing a primary meeting object defining a duration of a primary meeting; (Just [0023] discloses accessing a personal calendar and/or meeting invite and meeting information including duration; [0042] discloses The room resource management module 250 can access a meeting rooms calendar 254, which indicates whether a specific room is available and for what duration.) accessing, during the ongoing communication session corresponding to the meeting, a secondary calendar storing a secondary meeting object that is at least in part overlapping with a time of the primary meeting object, (Just [0056] discloses In different implementations, it can be appreciated that the selected meeting overlaps or otherwise conflicts with a prior reservation for the room. In other words, the selected meeting may have a duration that extends into a time frame in which the second room has been already booked.) the secondary meeting object indicating a personalized interval for the user that is shorter than the duration defined in the primary meeting object, the secondary meeting object defining a start time and an end time of the personalized interval, (Just [0033] discloses a user may be provided with a means of quickly accessing their own individual or personal meeting calendar and/or information about their schedule.) wherein the primary calendar and the secondary calendar both include the user, (Just [0033] discloses For example, once the first user 102 registers with the first system 164, for example by presentation of her identification badge or other type of security token (referred to herein as a token 172), and the RFID reader 162 obtains a reading of the token 172, the first system 164 can be configured to automatically access the first user' calendar, determine which meeting event is scheduled to occur soonest or nearest to the present time, and initiate a connection to that meeting.)
monitoring, by the use of one or more backend data structures of the data processing system, a running time of a primary meeting of the primary meeting object to determine that the running time is within a threshold relative to the start time or the end time specified in the secondary meeting object; (Just [0040] discloses This information can be collected or harvested from a central calendar application used by the organization, a social networking application, a conferencing application, user e-mails and messages, and/or events that the user is following or has liked or otherwise expressed an interest in, and pulled into a user calendar updater 224 which reflects the most recent or up-to-date view of the user's upcoming (or in progress) events. This information can be used to generate a personal calendar 228 for the current user that lists or otherwise identifies one or more upcoming events that the user may have an intention of participating in or may be of interest to the user; [0043] discloses The room resource management module 250 can query the communication management system 230 as to the expected meeting start time and duration in order to ascertain whether the desired resource is in fact available for the full duration of the event.) updating the one or more backend data structures to reflect the running time of the primary meeting and a current state of the user to determine that the threshold has been reached; (Just [0050] discloses With respect to the first indicator 510, it can be seen that the first meeting (“Design Crit”) is already in progress via the meeting status 544, and a selectable option 550 provides a “Join” function that may remain available prior to as well as throughout the duration of an ongoing meeting.) and in response to determining that the running time of the primary meeting is within the threshold relative to the start time or the end time specified in the secondary meeting object, causing the data processing system to generate and display, in a meeting user interface, a visual indicator associated an identifier of the user indicating that the user will arrive at or leave the meeting. (Just [0067] discloses When the user arrives at the selected room, the system can automatically initiate a connection to the telecommunications session. For example, upon arrival, the user may enter a password or present their security token to the room device(s), and in response to this input, the system can join or connect the room device(s) with the host system on behalf of the user. In some implementations, the room can include a room status display (for example, on an outside wall), and this display will have been updated to reflect the new reservation that has been made by the current user.)
Regarding claims 2/9/16, Just discloses:
The method of claim 1; The system of claim 8; The computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the start time of the personalized interval of the secondary meeting object is after a start time of the primary meeting, wherein the notification is a sound or a graphical element displayed in a status region of a user interface displaying content of the primary meeting. (Just [0056] discloses In such cases, the system can notify the second user of the conflict, either on the outside interface panel, or on one of the displays in the room. In some implementations, this notification can occur once the user makes his meeting selection.)
Regarding claims 4/11/18, Just discloses:
The method of claim 1; The system of claim 8; The computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the end time of the personalized interval of the secondary meeting object is before an end time of the primary meeting, wherein the notification is a sound or a graphical element displayed in a status region of a user interface displaying content of the primary meeting. (Just [0056] discloses In such cases, the system can notify the second user of the conflict, either on the outside interface panel, or on one of the displays in the room. In some implementations, this notification can occur once the user makes his meeting selection.)
Regarding claims 6/13/20, Just discloses:
The method of claim 1; The system of claim 8; The computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the running time of the primary meeting is within the threshold of the time of the secondary meeting object when the running time has reached the start time of the personalized interval of the secondary meeting object, wherein the notification is a sound or a graphical element displayed in a status region of a user interface displaying content of the primary meeting. (Just [0056] discloses In such cases, the system can notify the second user of the conflict, either on the outside interface panel, or on one of the displays in the room. In some implementations, this notification can occur once the user makes his meeting selection.)
Regarding claims 7/14, Just discloses:
The method of claim 1; The system of claim 8, wherein the time defined in the secondary meeting object is an end time of the secondary meeting object of when the user is to end the attendance duration, wherein the running time of the primary meeting is within the threshold of the time of the secondary meeting object when the running time has reached the end time of the personalized interval of the secondary meeting object, wherein the notification is a sound or a graphical element displayed in a status region of a user interface displaying content of the primary meeting. (Just [0056] discloses In such cases, the system can notify the second user of the conflict, either on the outside interface panel, or on one of the displays in the room. In some implementations, this notification can occur once the user makes his meeting selection.)
Regarding claim 21, Just discloses:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the one or more backend data structures comprise a record including fields for a current meeting-runtime timestamp, a user-state flag indicating an upcoming arrival or departure condition, and a display-update token, and wherein updating the one or more backend data structures comprises automatically writing, during the ongoing communication session, a value of the current meeting-runtime timestamp and toggling the user- state flag when the threshold relative to the start time or the end time specified in the secondary meeting object is reached, thereby causing the data-processing system to transmit, without user input, an instruction to the meeting user interface to refresh the visual indicator associated with the identifier of the user. (Just [0026] discloses users can also easily view a listing of their upcoming (or in progress) meetings at shared resource devices; [0046] discloses a toggle function.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 12, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Just in view of US Pub. No. 2018/0139246 (hereinafter; Rosenberg).
Regarding claims 5/12/19, although Just discloses providing notifications indicating meeting activity of users, Just does not specifically disclose a countdown timer. However, Rosenberg discloses:
The method of claim 4; The system of claim 11; The computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, wherein the method further comprises: updating the graphical element with a countdown timer showing a time difference between the running time of the primary meeting and end time of the personalized interval of the secondary meeting object. (Rosenberg [0037] discloses a meeting timer with a countdown.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for facilitating real-time management of meetings and room resources of Just with the graphical user interface that uses calendar information of Rosenberg in order to indicate how much time individual participants have before their next appointment (Rosenberg abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 10/17, although Just discloses providing notifications indicating meeting activity of users, Just does not specifically disclose a countdown timer. However, Rosenberg discloses:
The system of claim 9, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processing units to: update the graphical element with a countdown timer showing a time difference between the running time of the primary meeting and start time of the personalized interval of the secondary meeting object. (Rosenberg [0037] discloses a meeting timer with a countdown.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for facilitating real-time management of meetings and room resources of Just with the graphical user interface that uses calendar information of Rosenberg in order to indicate how much time individual participants have before their next appointment (Rosenberg abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625