Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. The following is a Non-Final, first Office Action responsive to Application Serial Number: 18802937 filed on 08/13/2024.
Claims 1-21 are pending in the current application and have been rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 08/13/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 5, 12 and 13 objected to for the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “by the at least one server, server,” instead of “by the at least one server, ”;
Claim 12 recites “receiving by each user of the at least one user group the calendar” instead of “receiving by each user of the at least one user group the electronic calendar”; and
Claim 13 recites “wherein the at least one calendar” instead of “wherein the at least one electronic calendar”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of method (process), system (machine) or medium (manufacture), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
7. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 1 recites A method .. comprising: determining .. an initial number of user groups for an enterprise .., based on at least one of an initial total number of users for the enterprise, types of users, or a maximum threshold; .. creating the user groups of the initial total number ..; for a first user in a list of users: determining .. a current number of users assigned to a first user group of the user groups; and assigning .. the first user to the first user group, based on the current number of users in the first user group being below the maximum threshold; and for a second user in the list of users: determining .. a current number of users assigned to a first user group of the user groups; and assigning the second user to a second user group of the user groups, based on the current number of users in the first user group not being below the maximum threshold, which, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation in light of the Specification, is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, particularly fundamental economic principles or practices (including mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instruction), because creating user groups in an enterprise is a business practice involving interactions between people. Furthermore, it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because assigning users to groups based on maximum thresholds for the groups is a process that, under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, can be performed in the mind since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation. Claims 15 and 20 recite similar abstract ideas.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the independent Claims, including additional elements such as automatic group and user management for an enterprise email and calendaring platform, by at least one server, automatically, at least one enterprise server coupled to the enterprise email and calendaring platform;, at least one database coupled to the at least one enterprise server; and at least one user device coupled to the at least one enterprise server, wherein the at least one user device runs a front-end interface of the enterprise email and calendaring platform, wherein the at least one enterprise server is configured to: receive at least one file from the at least one database; read the at least one file; based on the at least one file, execute an automated process, A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions, executed by at least one processor, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis, the independent Claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because any such additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 5, 6, and paragraphs 13, 17, 18, 38-52, 72-74, 76-78, 83, 85-88 of the Specification in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant independent Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-14, 16-19 and 21 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in the independent Claims from which they depend, and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2-14, 19 and 21 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2A Prong Two for dependent Claims 16-18, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because these Claims, including additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and data objects, hosted on a cloud network, hosted, or stored by the enterprise email and calendar platform, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). These Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2-14, 19 and 21 do not include any additional elements beyond those included in the list above with respect to the independent Claims from which they depend. These dependent Claims therefore do not recite anything that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 16-18 do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because any such additional elements such as those listed above for the independent Claims and data objects, hosted on a cloud network, hosted, or stored by the enterprise email and calendar platform, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine activity or use of computers (as evidenced by Figures 1, 5, 6, and paragraphs 13, 17, 18, 38-52, 72-74, 76-78, 83, 85-88 of the Specification in the instant Application, and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103:
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.
35 U.S.C. 103 forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action.
9. Claims 1, 3-10, 14-16 and 19-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes et al. (US Publication Number 20100058324 A1 - hereinafter Hughes) in view of Anderson et al. et al. (US Publication Number 20120182384 A1 - hereinafter Anderson).
10. As per Claim 1, Hughes teaches:
A method for … group and user management for an enterprise email and calendaring platform [HUGHES reads on: Abstract (networked system); Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B, Fig. 2; Fig. 4A (GUI 410, Schedule - calendaring); para 43 (user details 512 include .. email 512d)], the method comprising:
determining, by at least one server, an initial number of user groups for an enterprise for the enterprise email and calendaring platform [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 1A (CENTRALIZED SERVER 110); Fig. 4F (Acme Corporation, System Groups 466)],
based on at least one of an initial total number of users for the enterprise, types of users, or a maximum threshold [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4A (field 412); Fig. 4F (Acme Corporation, Active Users 464 is an initial total number of users for the enterprise); Fig. 4H (system entitlements 482, Management (Base), Assign New Total, Possible Values: 0 to 1600 – 1600 is a maximum threshold); para 34 (The GUI 410 provides a field 412 for entering an organization name, such as "sales department." - sales department is types of users); para 35 (number of users 428 of each organization); para 39 (the number of active users 464 in the organization); para 41 (GUI 480, total number of system entitlements available to the organization; limited to the range 488 is a maximum threshold)]; …
… creating the user groups of the initial total number, by the at least one server [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4A (GUI 410, Create New Organization); Fig. 4F, as above; para 11 (The centralized server allows the customer to create organizations); paras 21, 22];
for a first user in a list of users: determining, by the at least one server, a current number of users assigned to a first user group of the user groups [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4B (ORGANIZATIONS 422, Millenium Falcon, Administrators, View all 10 administrators); para 35]; and assigning, by the at least one server, the first user to the first user group [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4B (Millenium Falcon, Administrators, adm_ackbar)], …
… for a second user in the list of users: determining, by the at least one server, a current number of users assigned to a first user group of the user groups [HUGHES, as above]; and
assigning the second user to a second user group of the user groups [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4J (User Details 512, Roles 514D – Organization Administrator is a second user group of the user groups)], …
Hughes does not explicitly teach, but Anderson teaches:
… automatic [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 1 (Video Conferencing System); para 68 (server can monitor incoming video streams, automatically handle them); para 72 (conference scheduling); para 83 (automatically forms subgroups); para 85 (Group auto-formation); para 511 (when a facilitator launches the presentation system, the presentation window or panel is opened for all participants automatically)] …
… automatically [ANDERSON, as above] …
… based on the current number of users in the first user group being below the maximum threshold [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 10 (Multi-Interactive Mode Participant List 1004); para 251 (the number of participants in each subgroup can be set to any number from two to ten (or more) is the maximum threshold); para 254 (18 participants, groups of 4, two participants left over); para 256 (keep the leftover participants together as a smaller group is current number of users in the first user group being below the maximum threshold); para 318 (additional attendees are added to subgroups that have less than the desired number of attendees)]; and …
… based on the current number of users in the first user group not being below the maximum threshold [ANDERSON reads on: para 251 (if there are 24 participants, and the facilitator requests subgroups of size 4 (four participants maximum in each subgroup), then six subgroups of size 4 will be formed is the current number of users in the first user group not being below the maximum threshold); para 254 (four participants maximum in each subgroup)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes to incorporate the teachings of Anderson in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include automatic, automatically, based on the current number of users in the first user group being below the maximum threshold, based on the current number of users in the first user group not being below the maximum threshold. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes by efficiently incorporating group conferencing. See Anderson, paragraph 1, "This invention relates generally to person-to-person and person-to-group conferencing, using video and audio over the Internet".
11. As per Claim 3, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by the at least one server [as above, Claim 1],
Hughes does not explicitly teach but Anderson further teaches:
a current number of users in the second user group, based on the current number of users in the first user group being at or above the maximum threshold [ANDERSON reads on: paras 251, 254 (forming second group when first group reaches the maximum of 4)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson to incorporate the further teachings of Anderson in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include a current number of users in the second user group, based on the current number of users in the first user group being at or above the maximum threshold. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson by efficiently incorporating group conferencing.
12. As per Claim 4, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The method of claim 1 [as above], further comprising:
Hughes does not explicitly teach but Anderson further teaches:
creating, by the at least one server, a third user group of the user groups based on the current number of users in the second user group not being below the maximum threshold; and assigning, by the at least one server, a third user to the third user group [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 1 (Web Sever 102); paras 251, 254 (forming third group when second group reaches the maximum of 4, adding next user to the third group)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson to incorporate the further teachings of Anderson in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include creating, by the at least one server, a third user group of the user groups based on the current number of users in the second user group not being below the maximum threshold; and assigning, by the at least one server, a third user to the third user group. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson by efficiently incorporating group conferencing.
13. As per Claim 5, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The method of claim 1 [as above], further comprising
Hughes further teaches:
receiving the list of users, by the at least one server, server, from at least one database of the enterprise [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 1A (DATABASE 112); Fig. 2 (CENTRALIZED SERVER 200, DATABASE ACCESSING MODULE 250); Fig. 4G (list of all users on in the Acme Corp. organization)].
14. As per Claim 6, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The method of claim 1 [as above], wherein
Hughes further teaches:
the maximum threshold is set by the enterprise email and calendaring platform [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4H (system entitlements 482, Management (Base), Assign New Total, Possible Values: 0 to 1600); para 41].
15. As per Claim 7, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The method of claim 1, further comprising, by the at least one server, after assigning the first and second users [as above, Claim 1]:
Hughes does not explicitly teach but Anderson further teaches:
for third, fourth and fifth users in the list of users, determining the current number of users in the first user group; assigning the third user to the first user group, based on the current number of users in the first user group being below the maximum threshold; assigning the fourth user to the second user group, based on the current number of users in the first user group not being below the maximum threshold and the current number of users in the second user group being below the maximum threshold; creating a third user group of the user groups based on a current number of users in the first and second user groups not being below the maximum threshold; and assigning the fifth user to the third user group [ANDERSON reads on: paras 251, 254-256 (dynamic group option)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson to incorporate the further teachings of Anderson in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include for third, fourth and fifth users in the list of users, determining the current number of users in the first user group; assigning the third user to the first user group, based on the current number of users in the first user group being below the maximum threshold; assigning the fourth user to the second user group, based on the current number of users in the first user group not being below the maximum threshold and the current number of users in the second user group being below the maximum threshold; creating a third user group of the user groups based on a current number of users in the first and second user groups not being below the maximum threshold; and assigning the fifth user to the third user group. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson by efficiently incorporating group conferencing.
16. As per Claim 8, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The method of claim 1 [as above], further comprising
Hughes further teaches:
maintaining user management for the enterprise email and calendaring platform, wherein maintaining user management [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4H (Visualization Platform)] comprises:
receiving, by the at least one server, an electronic file of user changes for the enterprise [HUGHES reads on: Figs. 1A, 1B, 2; Fig. 4H (Provisioning, configuration file provisioning; Update Entitlement Counts)], …
… first and second newly added user for the enterprise [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4H (Visualization Platform, enables management for unlimited guests, Used 2)]; …
… for the first and second newly added users [HUGHES, above]:
determining a current number of users assigned to at least one user group of the user groups [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4B (ORGANIZATIONS 422, Millenium Falcon, Administrators, View all 10 administrators); para 35];
assigning the first newly added user to at least one user group [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4J (User Details 512, Roles 514D – Configuration Administrator is assigning the first newly added user to at least one user group)], …
… assigning the second newly added user to another user group of the user groups [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4J (User Details 512, Roles 514D – Channel Administrator is another user group of the user groups)], …
Hughes does not explicitly teach but Anderson further teaches:
… wherein the user changes comprise a newly removed user for the enterprise [ANDERSON reads on: para 309 (terminating any data stream to or from the dropped attendee, and removing the attendee from all attendee lists); para 420 (If the client has not check in proceed to step 2007); para 423 (removes the client from the server maintained list of connected clients)] and …
… for the newly removed user [ANDERSON, above]:
identifying a storage user group of the user groups containing the newly removed user; and deleting the newly removed user from the storage user group [ANDERSON reads on: para 325 (The facilitator is removed from the subgroup attendee lists)]; and …
… based on the determining that the current number of users assigned to the at least one user group is below a maximum threshold [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 10 (Multi-Interactive Mode Participant List 1004); para 251 (the number of participants in each subgroup can be set to any number from two to ten (or more) is the maximum threshold); para 254 (18 participants, groups of 4, two participants left over); para 256 (keep the leftover participants together as a smaller group is current number of users assigned to the at least one user group is below a maximum threshold); para 318 (additional attendees are added to subgroups that have less than the desired number of attendees)]; and …
… based on the determining that a current number of users assigned to the at least one user group is not below the maximum threshold [ANDERSON reads on: para 251 (if there are 24 participants, and the facilitator requests subgroups of size 4 (four participants maximum in each subgroup), then six subgroups of size 4 will be formed); para 254 (four participants maximum in each subgroup)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson to incorporate the further teachings of Anderson in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include wherein the user changes comprise a newly removed user for the enterprise, for the newly removed user: identifying a storage user group of the user groups containing the newly removed user; and deleting the newly removed user from the storage user group, based on the determining that the current number of users assigned to the at least one user group is below a maximum threshold, based on the determining that a current number of users assigned to the at least one user group is not below the maximum threshold. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson by efficiently incorporating group conferencing.
17. As per Claim 9, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein the maintaining [as above, Claim 8]
Hughes further teaches:
occurs ..periodically [HUGHES reads on: para 24 (centralized server 110 may synchronize with the external server 170 by checking with the external server 170 for updates, Such synchronization may be performed periodically)].
Hughes does not explicitly teach but Anderson further teaches:
… automatically [ANDERSON, as above, Claim 1] and …
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson to incorporate the further teachings of Anderson in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include automatically. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson by efficiently incorporating group conferencing.
18 . As per Claim 10, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein a periodicity of the maintaining [as above, Claim 9] is
Hughes further teaches:
configurable … by an enterprise system, or manually by an administrator or authorized user of the enterprise system [HUGHES reads on: para 24 (Such synchronization may be performed periodically and/or in response to user requests. Alternatively, the external server 170 may notify the centralized server 110 when there are changes and/or updates)].
Hughes does not explicitly teach but Anderson further teaches:
… automatically [ANDERSON, as above, Claim 1] and …
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson to incorporate the further teachings of Anderson in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include automatically. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson by efficiently incorporating group conferencing.
19. As per Claim 14, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the maximum threshold [as above, Claim 1] comprises
Hughes further teaches:
at least one of a maximum number of users per user group or users of specific types per user group [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4H (system entitlements 482, Management (Base), Assign New Total, Possible Values: 0 to 1600 – 1600 is a maximum number of users per user group); para 41 (GUI 480, total number of system entitlements available to the organization; limited to the range 488 is a maximum number of users per user group)].
20. As per Claim 15, Hughes teaches:
A system comprising: an enterprise email and calendaring platform for an enterprise [HUGHES reads on: Abstract, Figs. 1A, 1B, 2, 4A, para 43, as above, Claim 1];
at least one enterprise server coupled to the enterprise email and calendaring platform [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 1A (CENTRALIZED SERVER 110)];
at least one database coupled to the at least one enterprise server [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 1A (DATABASE 112)]; and
at least one user device coupled to the at least one enterprise server [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 1A (MACHINE 120A); para 20], …
… wherein the at least one enterprise server is configured to: receive at least one file from the at least one database [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 1A (DATABASE 112); Fig. 1B (entry 182, EMPLOYMENT APPLICANT DATABASE); Fig. 2 (CENTRALIZED SERVER 200, DATABASE ACCESSING MODULE 250); Fig. 4H (Provisioning, configuration file provisioning; Update Entitlement Counts); para 17 (computer program may be stored in a computer-readable storage medium); para 21 (centralized server 110 associates data in the internal network 103 with its respective organizations, centralized server 110 may further store the data into the database 112); para 35 (list of organizations available on a centralized server, number of users 428 of each organization)];
read the at least one file; based on the at least one file, execute [HUGHES reads on: para 17 (a general-purpose computer selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer); para 48 (any machine capable of executing a set of instructions)] … to:
determine a current number of users in a user group of a set of user groups for the enterprise [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4B (ORGANIZATIONS 422, Millenium Falcon, Administrators, View all 10 administrators); para 35];
assign at least one user from the at least one file to the user group of the user groups [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4B (Millenium Falcon, Administrators, adm_ackbar)] …
… and assign at least one user in a subsequent user group of the user groups [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4B, as above; Fig. 4J (User Details 512, Roles 514D – Organization Administrator is a second user group of the user groups)] …
Hughes does not explicitly teach but Anderson teaches:
… wherein the at least one user device runs a front-end interface of the enterprise email and calendaring platform [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 1 (Video Conferencing System, Web Sever 102, Participant Internet Device); para 71 (video conferencing application on tablet or smartphone); para 73 (downloaded application for use on the participant's Internet device)], …
… an automated process [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 1, paras 68, 72, 85, 511, as above, Claim 1] …
… upon a determination that the current number is below a maximum threshold [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 10 (Multi-Interactive Mode Participant List 1004); para 251 (the number of participants in each subgroup can be set to any number from two to ten (or more) is the maximum threshold); para 254 (18 participants, groups of 4, two participants left over); para 256 (keep the leftover participants together as a smaller group is current number is below a maximum threshold); para 318 (additional attendees are added to subgroups that have less than the desired number of attendees)]; …
… upon a determination that the current number is not below the maximum threshold [ANDERSON reads on: para 251 (if there are 24 participants, and the facilitator requests subgroups of size 4 (four participants maximum in each subgroup), then six subgroups of size 4 will be formed is the current number is not below the maximum threshold); para 254 (four participants maximum in each subgroup)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes to incorporate the teachings of Anderson in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include wherein the at least one user device runs a front-end interface of the enterprise email and calendaring platform, an automated process, upon a determination that the current number is below a maximum threshold, upon a determination that the current number is not below the maximum threshold. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes by efficiently incorporating group conferencing.
21. As per Claim 16, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The system of claim 15, wherein the at least one file [as above, Claim 15] comprises
Hughes further teaches:
information, data or data objects for at least one of users of the enterprise, user groups of the enterprise, user roles of the enterprise, user activity logs of the enterprise, or system activity logs of the enterprise [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 3B (REPRESENT THE DATA WITH ENTRIES IN A DATABASE 330 is ); para 21 (store the data into the database 112)].
22. As per Claim 19, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The system of claim 15, wherein the at least one enterprise server [as above, Claim 15] is further configured to
Hughes further teaches:
execute a periodical maintenance job by: receiving a file of user changes from the at least one database [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 1A (DATABASE 112); Fig. 2 (CENTRALIZED SERVER 200, DATABASE ACCESSING MODULE 250); para 24 (centralized server 110 may synchronize with the external server 170 by checking with the external server 170 for updates, Such synchronization may be performed periodically); para 25 (centralized server 110 may synchronize with the external server 170 via machine-readable storage media)];
identifying user changes in the file [HUGHES reads on: para 24 (When there is a change to an item previously retrieved, the centralized server 110 may retrieve the change from the external server 170 and then update a copy of the item on the centralized server 110)], …
… assigning the new user to the first group [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4B (Millenium Falcon, Administrators, adm_ackbar)] …
… assigning the new user to another group of groups [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4J (User Details 512, Roles 514D – Channel Administrator is another group of groups)] …
Hughes does not explicitly teach but Anderson further teaches:
… wherein the user changes comprise a new user and a removed user [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 18 (1805: Update All Clients with New User Info; 1811: Delete Old User Information)];
identifying a storage group of the groups where the removed user is stored and delete the removed user from the storage group [ANDERSON reads on: para 325 (The facilitator is removed from the subgroup attendee lists)];
determining if a first group of the groups has a current number of users below a maximum threshold, wherein the maximum threshold comprises at least one of a maximum number of users or users of specific types per group [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 10 (Multi-Interactive Mode Participant List 1004); para 251 (the number of participants in each subgroup can be set to any number from two to ten (or more) is a maximum number of users); para 254 (18 participants, groups of 4, two participants left over); para 256 (keep the leftover participants together as a smaller group is current number of users below a maximum threshold); para 318 (additional attendees are added to subgroups that have less than the desired number of attendees)]; …
… upon a determination that the current number of users in the first group is below the maximum threshold [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 10 (Multi-Interactive Mode Participant List 1004); para 251 (the number of participants in each subgroup can be set to any number from two to ten (or more) is the maximum threshold); para 254 (18 participants, groups of 4, two participants left over); para 256 (keep the leftover participants together as a smaller group is the current number of users in the first group is below the maximum threshold)]; and …
… upon a determination that the current number of users in the group is not below the maximum threshold [ANDERSON reads on: para 251 (if there are 24 participants, and the facilitator requests subgroups of size 4 (four participants maximum in each subgroup), then six subgroups of size 4 will be formed is the current number of users in the group is not below the maximum threshold); para 254 (four participants maximum in each subgroup)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson to incorporate the further teachings of Anderson in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include wherein the user changes comprise a new user and a removed user; identifying a storage group of the groups where the removed user is stored and delete the removed user from the storage group; determining if a first group of the groups has a current number of users below a maximum threshold, wherein the maximum threshold comprises at least one of a maximum number of users or users of specific types per group; upon a determination that the current number of users in the first group is below the maximum threshold; and .. upon a determination that the current number of users in the group is not below the maximum threshold. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson by efficiently incorporating group conferencing.
23. As per Claim 20, Hughes teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that when executed by at least one processor cause the at least one processor [HUGHES reads on: Abstract, Figs. 1A, 1B, 2, 4A, para 43, as above, Claim 1; para 19 (information may be loaded onto machine-readable storage media, such as compact discs, The machine-readable storage media may also be referred to as computer-readable storage media)] to:
receive a file of user changes for an enterprise [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 1A (DATABASE 112); Fig. 2 (CENTRALIZED SERVER 200, DATABASE ACCESSING MODULE 250); para 24 (centralized server 110 may synchronize with the external server 170 by checking with the external server 170 for updates, Such synchronization may be performed periodically); para 25 (centralized server 110 may synchronize with the external server 170 via machine-readable storage media; When there is a change to an item previously retrieved, the centralized server 110 may retrieve the change from the external server 170 and then update a copy of the item on the centralized server 110))], …
… assign the added user to the group of the groups [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4B (Millenium Falcon, Administrators, adm_ackbar)] …
Hughes does not explicitly teach but Anderson teaches:
… wherein the user changes comprise a removed user and an added user [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 18 (1805: Update All Clients with New User Info; 1811: Delete Old User Information)];
identify a storage group of groups where the removed user is stored and deleting the removed user from the storage group [ANDERSON reads on: para 325 (The facilitator is removed from the subgroup attendee lists)];
determine if a first group of groups has a current number of users below a maximum threshold, wherein the maximum threshold comprises at least one of maximum number of users per group or users of specific types per group [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 10 (Multi-Interactive Mode Participant List 1004); para 251 (the number of participants in each subgroup can be set to any number from two to ten (or more) is a maximum number of users); para 254 (18 participants, groups of 4, two participants left over); para 256 (keep the leftover participants together as a smaller group is current number of users below a maximum threshold); para 318 (additional attendees are added to subgroups that have less than the desired number of attendees)]; …
… upon a determination that the current number of users in the group being below the maximum threshold [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 10 (Multi-Interactive Mode Participant List 1004); para 251 (the number of participants in each subgroup can be set to any number from two to ten (or more) is the maximum threshold); para 254 (18 participants, groups of 4, two participants left over); para 256 (keep the leftover participants together as a smaller group is the current number of users in the group being below the maximum threshold)]; and
assign the added user to another group of the groups upon a determination that the current number of users in the group not being below the maximum threshold [ANDERSON reads on: para 251 (if there are 24 participants, and the facilitator requests subgroups of size 4 (four participants maximum in each subgroup), then six subgroups of size 4 will be formed is assign the added user to another group of the groups upon a determination that the current number of users in the group not being below the maximum threshold); para 254 (four participants maximum in each subgroup)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes to incorporate the teachings of Anderson in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include wherein the user changes comprise a removed user and an added user; identify a storage group of groups where the removed user is stored and deleting the removed user from the storage group; determine if a first group of groups has a current number of users below a maximum threshold, wherein the maximum threshold comprises at least one of maximum number of users per group or users of specific types per group; upon a determination that the current number of users in the group being below the maximum threshold; and assign the added user to another group of the groups upon a determination that the current number of users in the group not being below the maximum threshold. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes by efficiently incorporating group conferencing.
24. As per Claim 21, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 20, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor [as above, Claim 20], further cause the processor to:
Hughes further teaches:
determine an initial number of user groups, based on at least one of an initial total number of users or the maximum threshold [HUGHES reads on: Figs. 1A, 4A , 4F, 4H, paras 34, 39, 41, as above, Claim 1]; …
… create the user groups of the initial total number [HUGHES reads on: Figs. 4A, 4F, paras 11, 21, 22, as above, Claim 1];
for a user in a list of users, determine a total number of users in a group of the groups [HUGHES reads on: Fig. 4H (Acme Corporation, entitlements 482, Used – used entitlements is a total number of users in a group of the groups)]; …
Hughes does not explicitly teach but Anderson further teaches:
… automatically [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 1, paras 68, 83, 85, 511, as above, Claim 1] …
… assign the user in the group upon a determination that the total number of users in the group being below the maximum threshold [ANDERSON reads on: Fig. 10 (Multi-Interactive Mode Participant List 1004); para 251 (the number of participants in each subgroup can be set to any number from two to ten (or more) is the maximum threshold); para 254 (18 participants, groups of 4, two participants left over); para 256 (keep the leftover participants together as a smaller group is the total number of users in the group being below the maximum threshold); para 318 (additional attendees are added to subgroups that have less than the desired number of attendees)]; and
assign the user to a subsequent group of the groups upon a determination that the total number of users in the group not being below the maximum threshold [ANDERSON reads on: para 251 (if there are 24 participants, and the facilitator requests subgroups of size 4 (four participants maximum in each subgroup), then six subgroups of size 4 will be formed is the total number of users in the group not being below the maximum threshold); para 254 (four participants maximum in each subgroup)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson to incorporate the further teachings of Anderson in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include automatically, assign the user in the group upon a determination that the total number of users in the group being below the maximum threshold; and assign the user to a subsequent group of the groups upon a determination that the total number of users in the group not being below the maximum threshold. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson by efficiently incorporating group conferencing.
25. Claims 2, 11 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes in view of Anderson in further view of Vymenets et al. (US Publication Number 20120173638 A1 - hereinafter Vymenets).
26. As per Claim 2, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The method of claim 1 [as above], further comprising
Hughes in view of Anderson does not explicitly teach but Vymenets teaches:
pushing the user groups, by the at least one server, to the enterprise and email calendaring platform [VYMENETS reads on: Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. 4 (communication system); Fig. 5 (Group Database 34); para 31 (electronic messages, calendar appointments); para 35 (push-based communication services)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Vymenets in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include pushing the user groups, by the at least one server, to the enterprise and email calendaring platform. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson by efficiently incorporating group communications. See Vymenets, paragraph 2, "The following relates to systems and methods for managing electronic groups".
27. As per Claim 11, Hughes in view of Anderson in view of Vymenets teaches:
The method of claim 2, further comprising pushing, by the enterprise email and calendaring platform [as above. Claim 2],
Hughes does not explicitly teach but Anderson further teaches:
at least one electronic calendar to at least one user group of the user groups [ANDERSON reads on: para 83 (static or dynamic group formation set as a preference by the facilitator when scheduling the conference is at least one electronic calendar to at least one user group of the user groups); para 89; para 90 (support static groups across multiple conferences, repeating a conference, conferences scheduled by the owner, including future events)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson in view of Vymenets to incorporate the further teachings of Anderson in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include at least one electronic calendar to at least one user group of the user groups. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson in view of Vymenets by efficiently incorporating group communications.
28. As per Claim 12, Hughes in view of Anderson in view of Vymenets teaches:
The method of claim 11 [as above], further comprising
Hughes in view of Anderson does not explicitly teach but Vymenets further teaches:
receiving by each user of the at least one user group the calendar into each user’s calendaring account [VYMENETS reads on: para 31 (first mobile device 10 receives or otherwise obtains various data 14 .. The data 14 may represent electronic messages (e.g. email, SMS, MMS, IM, etc.), calendar appointments ..)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson in view of Vymenets to incorporate the further teachings of Vymenets in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include receiving by each user of the at least one user group the calendar into each user’s calendaring account. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson in view of Vymenets by efficiently incorporating group communications.
29. Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes in view of Anderson in view of Vymenets in further view of Horvitz et al. (US Patent Number US 7644144 B1 – hereinafter Horvitz).
30. As per Claim 13, Hughes in view of Anderson in view of Vymenets teaches:
The method of claim 11, wherein the at least one calendar [as above, Claim 11] comprises
Hughes in view of Anderson in view of Vymenets does not explicitly teach but Horvitz teaches:
at least one of private holidays, public holidays, religious holidays, or individual occasions [HORVITZ reads on: Col. 36 line 54- Col. 37 line 8 (contactee preference data 1454 can include .. Weekend, Holiday, ..)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson in view of Vymenets to incorporate the teachings of Horvitz in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include at least one of private holidays, public holidays, religious holidays, or individual occasions. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson in view of Vymenets by efficiently incorporating clear group communications. See Horvitz, Abstract, "A system for optimizing the value of communications between communicating parties is provided".
31. Claims 17 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hughes in view of Anderson in further view of Raleigh et al. (US Publication Number 20210344718 A1 – hereinafter Raleigh).
32. As per Claim 17, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The system of claim 15 [as above], wherein
Hughes in view of Anderson does not explicitly teach but Raleigh teaches:
at least one portion of the system is hosted on a cloud network [RALEIGH reads on: Fig. 103 (Service Controller 1710, Cloud); para 451 (service controller 1610 can be implemented, e.g., in the cloud); para 470 (common service controller cloud service software implemented at the service controller 1710)].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Raleigh in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include at least one portion of the system is hosted on a cloud network. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson by efficiently incorporating appropriate technology systems. See Raleigh, Abstract, "A technique involves modular storage of network service plan components and provisioning of same".
33. As per Claim 18, Hughes in view of Anderson teaches:
The system of claim 15, wherein the user groups [as above, Claim 15] are
Hughes in view of Anderson does not explicitly teach but Raleigh teaches:
hosted, or stored by the enterprise email and calendar platform [RALEIGH reads on: Fig. 20 (Name - Gmail-no label, Filters - Google Calendar Application); para 245; Fig. 103, paras 451, 470, as above, Claim 17].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hughes in view of Anderson to incorporate the teachings of Raleigh in the same field of endeavor of enterprise connectivity to include hosted, or stored by the enterprise email and calendar platform. The motivation for doing this would have been to improve the enterprise network connectivity of Hughes in view of Anderson by efficiently incorporating appropriate technology systems.
Conclusion
34. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Chen et al. (US Patent Publication Number 20210067570 A1) describes a system and method for creating a discussion group based on instant messaging.
Cooper et al. (US Patent Publication Number 20140229556 A1) describes systems and methods to facilitate management of contact lists, email distribution lists, and network access privileges.
Fieldman et al. (US Patent Publication Number 20080040442 A1) describes systems and methods of using an integrated database management system and communication tool to provide group management and communication services through wide area networks.
Hamasako et al. (US Patent Publication Number 20240380629 A1) describes a system and method for enabling users to communicate with each using electronic conferencing.
Frank et al. (US Patent Publication Number 20180197144 A1) describes a system and method for group-based communication in an enterprise.
Ponnusamy et al. et al. (US Patent Publication Number 20180268416 A1) describes a system and method for automatically managing memberships associated with projects of an enterprise entity.
Vladimirskiy et al. (US Patent Publication Number 20180295033 A1) describes a system and method for a scalable, standardized IT deployment environment that allows for deployment to any public or private cloud automatically.
Rykowski et al. (US Patent Publication Number 20170032042 A1) describes a system and method for integrating multiple domains within a directory service.
McFadden et al. (US Patent Publication Number 20030126137 A1) describes a system and method for generation and management of groups of individuals within a data processing environment such as electronic messaging.
35. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623