DETAILED ACTION
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/19/26 has been entered, in which Applicant amended claims 1, 6, 10, 11, and 16. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected as indicated below.
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
No Information Disclosure Statement has yet been filed. As such, No Information Disclosure Statement has been considered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1-20 are still applied in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations.
The 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 1-20 are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations.
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 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. Here, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, Examiner finds that the Applicant invented a method and system for determining completions of agenda items of a multi-participant communication using a transcription during the multi-participant communication and generating an agenda for a next multi-participant communication including incomplete agenda items. Examiner formulates an abstract idea analysis, following the framework described in the MPEP, as follows:
Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category, namely a "method" (claims 1-10) and "system" (claims 11-20).
Step 2A - Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, regarding claim 1:
identifying one or more agenda items of a first agenda associated with a first multi-participant communication…;
generating… a real-time transcription of the first multi-participant communication using audio data of the first multi-participant communication;
determining… that a first agenda item of the one or more agenda items remains incomplete at an end of the first multi-participant communication ends;
identifying… a person based on a first set of one or more keywords from the real-time transcription of the first multi-participant communication wherein a second set of one or more keywords associated with the person link the person to the first agenda item, internal metadata associated with users of the software platform, and external metadata associated with users of the software platform, wherein the person did not participate in the first multi-participant communication;
generating… for a second multi-participant communication, a second agenda including the first agenda item and associating the person with the first agenda item;
…
and sending an invite for the second multi-participant communication to… the person, wherein the invite provides the second agenda and includes an action item assigned to the person.
Independent claims 11 and 16 recites substantially similar claim language.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claims 1, 11, and 16 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s) to particular data characterization and/or additional data analyses performed as part of the abstract idea.
The limitations in claims 1-20 above falling well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts, specifically the claims are found to correspond to the category of:
"Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)" as the limitations identified above are directed to determining completions of agenda items of a multi-participant communication using a transcription during the multi-participant communication and generating an agenda for a next multi-participant communication including incomplete agenda items and thus is a method of organizing human activity including at least commercial or business interactions or relations and/or a management of user personal behavior.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 are found to clearly be directed to the abstract idea identified above because the claims, as a whole, fail to integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the claims recite the additional elements of:
"A method, comprising: identifying one or more agenda items of a first agenda associated with a first multi-participant communication implemented using a software platform, / A system, comprising: a data store configured to store data indicative of agenda items; a communication system configured to implement a first multi-participant communication at a first time and a second multi-participant communication at a second time after the first time; and an agenda intelligence system configured to: / An apparatus, comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:" (claims 1, 11, and 16), “generating, by a transcription engine of the software platform configured for automatic speech recognition; determining, by an agenda intelligence system of the software platform using a machine learning model to process the real-time transcription,” (claims 1, 11, and 16), “uploading the second agenda to a data store accessible by a user account associated with the person,” (claims 1, 11, and 16), “sending an invite for the second multi-participant communication to a user device associated with the person,” (claims 1, 11, and 16), however the aforementioned elements merely amount to generic components of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, furthermore the high-level recitation of receiving data from a generic "software platform" is at most an attempt to limit the abstract to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.0S(h), e.g.: "For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).") and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPE 2106.05(g)) and thus further fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
Step 2B: Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to a general purpose computer that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment (MPEP 2106.0S(f)), including merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use via a "software platform", as explained above, and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering or output, (MPEP 2106.0S(g)), as identified above, which is further found under step 2B to be merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to determining completions of agenda items of a multi-participant communication using a transcription during the multi-participant communication and generating an agenda for a next multi-participant communication including incomplete agenda items.
Claims 1-20 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis
For further authority and guidance, see:
MPEP § 2106
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are found to overcome the prior art rejection. The claims would be found to be allowable over the prior art of record if they overcame the 35 USC 101 rejection.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of overcoming the prior art rejection:
The following limitations of claim 1,
…
identifying one or more agenda items of a first agenda associated with a first multi- participant communication implemented using a software platform;
generating, by a transcription engine of the software platform configured for automatic speech recognition, a real-time transcription of the first multi-participant communication using audio data of the first multi-participant communication;
determining, by an agenda intelligence system of the software platform using a machine learning model to process the real-time transcription, that a first agenda item of the one or more agenda items remains incomplete at an end of the first multi-participant communication;
identifying, by the agenda intelligence system, a person based on a first set of one or more keywords from the real-time transcription of the first multi-participant communication, wherein a second set of one or more keywords associated with the person link the person to the first agenda item, internal metadata associated with users of the software platform, and external metadata associated with users of the software platform, wherein the person did not participate in the first multi-participant communication;
generating, by the agenda intelligence system for a second multi-participant communication, a second agenda including the first agenda item and associating the person with the first agenda item;
uploading the second agenda to a data store accessible by a user account associated with the person; and
sending an invite for the second multi-participant communication to a user device associated with the person, wherein the invite provides the second agenda and includes an action item assigned to the person.
in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations are neither taught nor suggested, singularly or in combination, by the prior art of record. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, nor knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings. Independent claims 11 and 16, and dependent claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 likewise overcome the art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The closest prior art of record is described as follows:
Bentley et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0254279) - The abstract provides for the following: Method for scheduling and implementing an electronic meeting conducted among remotely-located users communicating with an agenda server, including: accepting a meeting agenda that includes a plurality of topics, a quorum, an identification of resources used by each topic, an identification of data used by each topic, and an identification of data produced by each topic; partitioning the meeting agenda into at least a first and second group of topics; searching for data dependencies between the first and second groups of topics; searching for resource dependencies between the first and second groups of topics; if data dependencies or resource dependencies are found between the first and second groups of topics, then repartitioning the meeting agenda until the data dependencies and resource dependencies between the first and second groups of topics are reduced below a predetermined dependency threshold; and concurrently scheduling and executing the first and second groups of topics.
Daredia et. al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0403817) - The abstract provides for the following: Methods, systems, and non-transitory computer readable storage media are disclosed for generating meeting insights based on media data and device input data. For example, in one or more embodiments, the disclosed system utilizes analyzes media data including audio data or video data and inputs to client devices associated with a meeting to determine a portion of the meeting (e.g., a portion of the media data) that is relevant for a user. In response to determining a relevant portion of the meeting, the system generates an electronic message including content related to the relevant portion of the meeting. The system then provides the electronic message to a client device of the user. For instance, in one or more embodiments, the system generates a meeting summary, meeting highlights, or action items related to the media data to provide to the client device of the user. In one or more embodiments, the system also uses the summary, highlights, or action items to train a machine-learning model for use with future meetings.
Shepherd et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0154291) - The abstract provides for the following: Systems and methods for managing behavior in a virtual collaboration session. In some embodiments, an Information Handling System (IHS) may include a processor and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory including program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to: receive engagement metrics from a participant of a virtual collaboration session, wherein the engagement metrics are indicative of the participant's level of engagement in the virtual collaboration session; calculate a score based upon the engagement metrics; and provide the score to the participant.
Abuelsaad et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0164510) – The abstract provides for the following: Rescheduling unfinished meeting agenda topics includes detecting an unfinished meeting agenda topic at a conclusion of a meeting and rescheduling with a meeting management engine the unfinished meeting agenda topic to be addressed in a later meeting
Antonios G Nanos et al. “A Virtual Meeting System for the New Age.” – The abstract provides for the following: With the growth of virtual organizations and multinational companies, virtual collaboration tasks are becoming more important for employees because the cost of business travels remains high. In this paper, a proposal is presented to create a virtual meeting system that can use artificial intelligent components to support participants and help to produce effective and better meeting outcomes or to save time by doing tasks in the background for users. A belief that the new age of collaborative environments should consist of intelligent features led to the development of a stable prototype V-ROOM that can be used to test how and if artificial intelligence can facilitate each meeting participant according to her/his formal meeting role and also, if it can facilitate the pre and post meeting tasks. The development is based on previous work, which involved testing the system in a classroom setting and making appropriate improvements. The results of a review and a comparison of virtual meeting systems are presented. The final development of the meeting system will be based on feedback received from professionals in various domains. The findings so far highlight that intelligent systems are needed, especially since information that individuals have to know and process, is vast. One of the main issues that needs to be overcome is that current artificial intelligence is not able to provide totally reliable information, and for this reason in some circumstances, it could hinder a meeting's effectiveness. Thus, it is contended that artificial intelligence should be used only as an assisting tool. The survey results showed that meeting summarization is one of the most important new features that should be added to virtual meeting systems.
Reding et al. (CA Patent Publication Number CA 2507154 C) - The abstract provides for the following: Methods and systems for automatically providing conference calls are disclosed. In one aspect of the invention, methods and systems detect a conference call event (705) that was previously configured by a subscriber user and identify participant users associated with the conference call event. Once identified, each participant user is contacted and a response is received from each of the users. Based on the received responses, a conference call is established between the participant users and the subscriber user (750). In one aspect of the invention, at least one of the detecting and identifying steps are performed without user intervention.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims transform data, offers technical benefits, and solves a specific technical problem. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 4/17/2026, pgs. 9-15). Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s assertions. As described above in the 35 USC 101 rejection, the claim recites an abstract idea that is analogous to organizing human activities and utilizes technology to facilitate implementation of the abstract ideas. Each of the steps set forth by the Examiner as abstract constitute actions that could be performed by a person and are written as directions to be performed (e.g. grouping inputting, calculating, comparing, etc.). The application of a machine learning process to these abstract concepts does not rise to the level of eligibility in and of itself. Additionally, the problems solved by applying the machine learning process are solely directed towards improving the abstract idea rather than the underlying technology. Examiner can not find any improvement to technology recited in the claims. The machine learning elements as claimed are recited at a high level of generality and merely use computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea.. (See e.g. MPEP 2106.05(f): (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it"). Additionally, other than an output of data there is no particular application of the technology recited by the claims. There is nothing in the claims that improves the underlying technology but instead the technology is present to facilitate implementation of the abstract ideas in a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the 35 USC 101 rejection has been maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H. DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0166. The fax phone number is 571-483-7110. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7:00 - 5:00. 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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787.
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.
/M.H.D/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights