DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are pending, as Claims 8-20 were cancelled. Claims 1-7 and 15-27 are considered in this Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-20 have been withdrawn/cancelled from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election with without traverse of the non-elected Claims in the reply filed on 5/5/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has cancelled Claims 8-20 in response to this requirement.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 15, and 21 of the current application (Hereby known as ‘285) is rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,051,046 (Hereby known as ‘046). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding Claims 1, 15, and 21, Claims 1, 21, and 28 of the current application (‘285) recites substantially similar steps of '046 – Claims 1, 8, and 15.
Claims 1, 15, and 21 of ‘285 recites the steps of:
in response to detecting an occurrence of a meeting, accessing a sensory data stream including audio of the meeting;
generating, during the meeting, a transcript of the audio of the meeting;
parsing, during the meeting, the transcript to determine a set of agenda items comprising an agenda discussed during the meeting;
causing a semantic computer model to detect a set of directives in the transcript;
generating a modified set of agenda items based on a subset of directives of the set of directives corresponding to a subset of agenda items of the set of agenda items; and
transmitting to a output data stream the modified set of agenda items to attendees of the meeting.
Whereas Claims 1, 8, and 15 of ‘046 states:
accessing digital data including email or document data to extract a sequence of words from a portion of the email or document data
subjecting the sequence of words to semantic computer modeling by a machine-learning model to programmatically generate one or more agenda items to be discussed during the meeting;
assembling, in advance of the meeting and without intervention by an invitee, the one or more agenda items into a meeting agenda comprising a list of the one or more agenda items by at least filtering a portion of the one or more agenda items, wherein information indicating modification to the meeting agenda or one or more agenda items by one or more invitees is usable to refine the machine learning model;
transmitting the meeting agenda to the one or more invitees; and
refining the machine-learning model based on feedback obtained from the information indicating the modification.
These are obvious variants of each other as both recite substantially the same limitations. Further, elimination of an element or its functions is deemed to be obvious in light of prior art teachings of at least the recited element or its functions (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184, 186; 311 F2d 581 (CCPA 1963)), thereby rendering the elimination of any elements recited in the claims of the related patent (that are not recited in the instant claims) obvious.
Thus, Claims 1, 15, and 21 of the current application is an obvious variant of claims 1, 8, and 15 in ‘046.
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.
Alice - Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, 21, and 28 recite limitations for in response to detecting an occurrence of a meeting, accessing a sensory data stream including audio of the meeting (Receiving and Analyzing Information, an observation and evaluation, a Mental Process ;Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating, during the meeting, a transcript of the audio of the meeting (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process ;Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), parsing, during the meeting, the transcript to determine a set of agenda items comprising an agenda discussed during the meeting (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process ;Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), causing a semantic computer model to detect a set of directives in the transcript (Analyzing the Information, an evaluation, a Mental Process ;Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), generating a modified set of agenda items based on a subset of directives of the set of directives corresponding to a subset of agenda items of the set of agenda items; and transmitting to a output data stream the modified set of agenda items to attendees of the meeting (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an evaluation and judgment, a Mental Process ;Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of Organizing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting use of a system, processor, memory, output data stream, and medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of managing meetings and tasks. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Human Activity, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The system, processor, memory, and medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“[0015] Meeting planner 12A is a server computer system and associated service configured to provide support to meeting invitees prior to the meeting. The meeting planner includes machine-learning models 14A and 14B configured, respectively, for topic extraction and item ranking, as discussed further below. In the illustrated example, the meeting planner is a component of an email / calendar service 16. In other examples, the meeting planner may be a component of another service or a stand-alone application. Meeting planner 12A is communicatively coupled to a document sever 18 and to an email server 20, each of which is accessible from internet 22. Various invitee devices 24?desktop and laptop computers, wearable devices, and portable devices such as smart phones, also access the internet, in some cases through a cellular network 26. In this manner, the meeting planner may gain access to each invitee's location, and to email and documents authored by the invitees.”
Which states any computer, desktop, smartphone, etc. can be used to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system, processor, etc., nor the receiving or transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7, 22-27, and 29-33 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice analysis of the MPEP, and thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 21-25, and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammon (U.S. Publication No. 2014/008,2100) in view of Flores (U.S. Publication No. 2016/011,7624).
Regarding Claims 1, 21, and 28, Sammon, a multi-service business platform system having reporting systems and methods, teaches a method comprising:
in response to detecting an occurrence of a meeting, accessing a sensory data stream including audio of the meeting ([0010] dynamically monitoring the communication session (a sensory data stream) for sensory data such as topic, keyword, speaker identification);
parsing, during the meeting, the transcript to determine a set of agenda items comprising an agenda discussed during the meeting ([0029] the system takes the audio stream and uses computer modeling and phonetics speech to text to analyze a group of words using NLP for speaker identification as in [0010]
causing a semantic computer model to detect a set of directives in the transcript ([0028-30] NLP is used with the sequence of words (group of words) to identify [0050] action items and assignments, which are directives);
generating a modified set of agenda items based on a subset of directives of the set of directives corresponding to a subset of agenda items of the set of agenda items; and transmitting to a output data stream the modified set of agenda items to attendees of the meeting. ([0008] the system generates updates, reminders, action items, which are notifications to assist participants in the meeting such as in [0048] where messages, alerts, etc. (notifications) are sent), and updating the action items/directives as in [0011] and [0014] where the agenda is updated based on the NLP machine learning of the system, which are sent to the invitees as above).
Although Sammon teaches using NLP to analyze groups of words for each invitee as in [0029] where the system takes the audio stream and uses computer modeling, training and refining a module for natural language understanding, a machine learning technique, from previous conversations (such as the meeting minutes in [0004]) as in [0030], for recognizing directives as above, and phonetics speech to text to analyze a group of words using NLP for speaker identification as in [0010], but does not explicitly state assembling one or more agenda items into a meeting agenda, or machine learning.
Flores teaches assembling, in advance of the meeting, the one or more agenda items into a meeting agenda ([0025] creation of agendas for action items and topics by a generator as in [0037] which would be before a meeting) comprising a list of the one or more agenda items identified and
generating, during the meeting, a transcript of the audio of the meeting (Use of machine learning algorithm for reading of data (As in Claim 4) and creation of agendas and discussion of topics as in [0056])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the NLP and learning for the creation of alerts of agendas of Sammon with the creation of agendas using voice data which is analyzed through machine learning of Flores as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to preparedness for meetings, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the overall effectiveness of meetings conducted by many users as taught in [0026] of Flores.
Examiner notes Sammon teaches system, processor, computer memory, and a medium ([0022] system with processors and network bus and memory connected to it).
Regarding Claims 2, 22, and 29, Although Sammon teaches notifying participants of a meeting as in [0044] and the agenda as in Claim 1 above, it does not explicitly state a commitment.
Flores teaches further comprising prompting an attendee of the meeting for a commitment based on a particular agenda item of the modified set of agenda items ([0056] acceptance of action items and agenda topics is a commitment as in [0081].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the NLP and learning for the creation of alerts of agendas of Sammon with the creation of agendas using voice data which is analyzed through machine learning of Flores as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to preparedness for meetings, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the overall effectiveness of meetings conducted by many users as taught in [0026] of Flores.
Regarding Claims 3, 23, and 30, the combination of Sammon and Rangan teaches transmitting an output data stream with information as in Claim 1 above.
Sammon does not explicitly state scheduling a follow up meeting.
Flores teaches further comprising transmitting to the output data stream an indication of a follow-up meeting based on the set of agenda items from the agenda discussed during the meeting ([0055] scheduling of a follow up meeting using an agenda).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the NLP and learning for the creation of alerts of agendas of Sammon with the creation of agendas using voice data which is analyzed through machine learning of Flores as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to preparedness for meetings, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the overall effectiveness of meetings conducted by many users as taught in [0026] of Flores.
Regarding Claims 4, 24, and 31, Sammon teaches wherein the modified set of agenda items is less than a number of agenda items included in the set of agenda items (updating the action items/directives as in [0011] and [0014] where the agenda is updated based on the NLP machine learning of the system, which are sent to the invitee)
Flores teaches assembling, in advance of the meeting, the one or more agenda items into a meeting agenda ([0025] creation of agendas for action items and topics by a generator as in [0037] which would be before a meeting) comprising a list of the one or more agenda items identified and
generating, during the meeting, a transcript of the audio of the meeting (Use of machine learning algorithm for reading of data (As in Claim 4) and creation of agendas and discussion of topics as in [0056])
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the NLP and learning for the creation of alerts of agendas of Sammon with the creation of agendas using voice data which is analyzed through machine learning of Flores as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to preparedness for meetings, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the overall effectiveness of meetings conducted by many users as taught in [0026] of Flores.
Regarding Claims 5, 25, and 32, Sammon teaches further comprising transmitting to the output data stream an indication to an attendee to join the meeting based on a set of attendees of the meeting detected using the sensory data stream ([0030-31] system determines, using the data stream whether an attendee has joined, this is the sensory data stream.
Claims 6-7, 26-27, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sammon (U.S. Publication No. 2014/008,2100) in view of Flores (U.S. Publication No. 2016/011,7624) in further view of Rangan (U.S. Publication No. 2017/003,9527).
Regarding Claims 6 and 26, Sammon teaches further comprising a set of action items for an attendee of the meeting based on the modified set of agenda items
Although Flores teaches use of a machine learning algorithm for improvement in meetings as above, it does not explicitly states this is in use with a list in an agenda.
Rangan teaches creating a ranked list for content and action items of the meeting as in [0059] which is found through use of an algorithm as in [0071].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the topics extracted using semantic learning of the combination of Sammon and Flores with the list ranking of content for meetings of Rangan as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to preparedness for meetings, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would efficiently provide recommended actions as taught in [0115] of Rangan.
Regarding Claims 7 and 27, S Although Sammon teaches the directives as in Claim 1 above, and using NLP to analyze groups of words for each invitee as in [0029] where the system takes the audio stream and uses computer modeling, training and refining a module for natural language understanding, a machine learning technique, from previous conversations (such as the meeting minutes in [0004]) as in [0030], for recognizing directives as above, and phonetics speech to text to analyze a group of words using NLP for speaker identification as in [0010], but does not explicitly state assembling one or more agenda items into a meeting agenda, or machine learning.
Flores teaches assembling, in advance of the meeting, the one or more agenda items into a meeting agenda ([0025] creation of agendas for action items and topics by a generator as in [0037] which would be before a meeting) comprising a list of the one or more agenda items identified and
Use of machine learning algorithm for reading of data (As in Claim 4) and creation of agendas and discussion of topics as in [0056].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the NLP and learning for the creation of alerts of agendas of Sammon with the creation of agendas using voice data which is analyzed through machine learning of Flores as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions to preparedness for meetings, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would improve the overall effectiveness of meetings conducted by many users as taught in [0026] of Flores.
Regarding Claim 33, Claim 33 is taught for the same reasons and rationale as in Claims 6-7 and 26-27 as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210117929 A1
LEWBEL; Hannah Rebecca et al.
GENERATING AND ADAPTING AN AGENDA FOR A COMMUNICATION SESSION
US 20190172017 A1
Burlin; Eva Britta Karolina et al.
TAGGING MEETING INVITEES TO AUTOMATICALLY CREATE TASKS
US 20180011848 A1
Spataro; Jared M. et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR COLLABORATION
US 20170039527 A1
Rangan; Venkat
AUTOMATIC RANKING AND SCORING OF MEETINGS AND ITS ATTENDEES WITHIN AN ORGANIZATION
US 20160117624 A1
FLORES; ROMELIA H. et al.
INTELLIGENT MEETING ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM
US 20140082100 A1
SAMMON; Michael J. et al.
VIRTUAL AGENDA PARTICIPANT
US 20230205985 A1
ZHU; Chenguang et al.
AUTOMATED MEETING MINUTES GENERATOR
US 20220013114 A1
CAMENARES; Christopher et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR QUANTIFYING MEETING EFFECTIVENESS USING NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING
US 20200293999 A1
Bhattacharya; Pamela et al.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FOR CALENDAR EVENT CONFLICT RESOLUTION
US 20200005248 A1
GERZI; Adi et al.
MEETING PREPARATION MANAGER
US 20190378076 A1
O'Gorman; Jonathan T. et al.
Meeting Management
US 20190074987 A1
WIENER; David Abraham et al.
ORGANIZING AND AGGREGATING MEETINGS INTO THREADED REPRESENTATIONS
US 20190028520 A1
Nawrocki; John K.
AI MEDIATED CONFERENCE MONITORING AND DOCUMENT GENERATION
US 20180046957 A1
Yaari; Ronen et al.
Online Meetings Optimization
US 20170270930 A1
Ozmeral; Erol James et al.
VOICE TALLYING SYSTEM
US 20170243171 A1
Bellamy; Rachel Katherine Emma et al.
MEETING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM
US 20160248910 A1
Merrow; Lucas et al.
SPEECH RECOGNITION METHOD OF AND SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING THE STATUS OF AN ANSWERED TELEPHONE DURING THE COURSE OF AN OUTBOUND TELEPHONE CALL
US 20150216413 A1
SOYAO; GRACE CASTILLO et al.
SYSTEMS, DEVICES, AND METHODS FOR ANALYZING AND ENHANCING PATIENT HEALTH
US 20150179186 A1
Swierk; Todd et al.
Visual Audio Quality Cues and Context Awareness in a Virtual Collaboration Session
US 20130103632 A1
ARDOINT; JEAN LOUIS et al.
COMPOSITE PRODUCTION RULES
US 20220327494 A1
Deole; Pushkar Yashavant et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING ELECTRONIC EVENT ATTENDANCE MODE RECOMMENDATIONS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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, BETH BOSWELL can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 8/2/2026
Prosecution Insights