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 .
In response to the After Final response filed on May 14, 2026, the Finality of the Office Action issued on March 26, 2026 has been withdrawn. A new Final Action is issued as follows. Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, and 17-26 are pending below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 101 rejections have been fully considered but are non-persuasive.
Applicant characterizes the abstract idea as requiring operations of networked computing resources, tangible data derived from machine operation, network behavior, and energy analytics, none of which can be performed as a mental process.
Examiner responds the networked computing resources, machine operation, and network behavior are raised in Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B. The current abstract idea relates to both mental processes and methods of organization human activities (managing human behavior).
Applicant argues the claims apply the abstract idea to a specific improvement in the operation of distributed computer systems and virtual-meeting networks, yielding a concrete technological benefit and introduce a feedback-based emissions-control loop that reduces computing inefficiency and network energy waste. Applicant cites a specific, tangible user-interface interaction that initiates an automated system-level control, transforming a passive display into an interactive control mechanism, and directly alters the operation of the distributed computing system.
Examiner responds the additional elements including computer, server, distributed computer system, user interface, the monitoring server, are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. The limitation, “a user interface that concurrently displays:(i) environmental impact indicators derived from the environmental impact metrics representing resource usage of the distributed computer system; and(ii) the prompt identifying the at least one corrective action predicted to reduce the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system” fails to change the function of the display in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information. Because the claimed display functions are broadly claimed and are directed to the basic functions of display technology, the claims do not improve the functioning of the display and do not improve the technical field of visualization. The limitation, “and in response to a user input selecting, via the prompt, an option to execute a remedial measure that reduces the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system, automatically executing, by the monitoring server, the remedial measure to reduce the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system” is still broadly recited and does not specific the type of remedial measure and thus generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h);
Applicant argues under Step 2B, the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea and the comparing, computing, and automatically executing limitations are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art and are a technical solution to a technical problem. In addition, the claimed process acts during the active virtual-meeting session to optimize energy usage and resource allocation in real time, and improves the operation of distributed computing systems by introducing real-time, feedback-based emissions control.
Examiner first notes, “during an active virtual-meeting session,” is just descriptive of the time. The “comparing” and “computing” are part of the abstract idea. Based on 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance Advanced module, Slide 38, Step2B–Limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”): “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The limitation, “a user interface that concurrently displays:(i) environmental impact indicators derived from the environmental impact metrics representing resource usage of the distributed computer system; and(ii) the prompt identifying the at least one corrective action predicted to reduce the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system” fails to change the function of the display in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information. Because the claimed display functions are broadly claimed and are directed to the basic functions of display technology, the claims do not improve the functioning of the display and do not improve the technical field of visualization. The limitation “and in response to a user input selecting, via the prompt, an option to execute a remedial measure that reduces the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system, automatically executing, by the monitoring server, the remedial measure to reduce the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system” is still broadly recited and generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h);
Claims 21 and 24-26 include no additional elements beyond those recited with respect to the claims above. In Claim 23, the ‘machine learning” generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h).
With respect to the Claim 22, the claim as a whole integrates the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities into a practical application. Thus, the claims are eligible because they are not directed to the recited judicial exception. Accordingly 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are withdrawn in light of 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 103 rejections have been fully considered but are non-persuasive.
Applicant argues Nguyen performs retrospective emissions reporting after a meeting has ended, not dynamic emissions comparison or control during an ongoing session, and do not constitute dynamic context-specific prompts during a meeting.
Examiner responds Nguyen disclose comparison and notification prompts during a meeting [0056] Systems of the present disclosure may educate and inform users and entities about their CO2 emissions (environment impact indicators derived from the environment impact metrics representing resource usage of the distributed computer system), reduction methods of CO2 emissions and other CO2 emission possibilities, whether in the present meeting or during a future meeting. Recommendations or policy changes can be made in real time or near real time.
Applicant argues Nguyen does not disclose classifying results into multiple categories.
Examiner responds Claim 25 is claimed, “at least one of...a good, medium, or bad emissions range based on comparison with the predefined C02-emissions benchmark.” Nguyen discloses a bad emissions range (0054- In various embodiments, system 100 ingests actual emissions, baseline emissions, and emissions reduction values of individual attendees and of the virtual meeting (Block 510). The actual emissions, baseline emissions, and emissions reduction values can be processed at regular intervals or on demand to generate reports or interfaces described herein. In some examples, notifications are automatically sent to an admin account in response to threshold emissions values being hit (bad emissions range) by individuals, teams, or across an enterprise.)
Applicant argues Nguyen and Ramakrishan does not teach “the communication is a display, nor automatically executing, by the monitoring server, the remedial server” nor automatic execution upon user selection of a prompt,” nor a real-time optimization of computing and networking operations for sustainability. Examiner responds Ramakrishnan, in analogous art, discloses the communication is a display; and in response to a user input selecting, via the prompt, an option to execute a remedial measure that reduces the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system, automatically executing, by the monitoring server, the remedial measure to reduce the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system. (Abstract, 0071-In an embodiment in which the user selects (a prompt) to implement one or more of the recommended instructions displayed via the GUI 291, the recommendation agent 290 may work in tandem with the power analytics module 240 to adjust policy settings for the videoconferencing application to implement the recommended and user-approved instructions. For example, in an embodiment in which the user has chosen to implement the recommended instruction to deactivate the camera 247 during the videoconferencing application user session, the power analytics module 240 may adjust the policy videoconference settings for the videoconferencing application to deactivate the camera 247, or may limit or cease power consumption by the camera 247. In another example, in an embodiment in which the user chooses to implement a recommended instruction to deactivate a visual effects filter of the videoconferencing application, such as application of a virtual background, the power analytics module 240 may adjust the policy settings for the videoconferencing application to deactivate the visual effects feature(s) of the videoconferencing application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Ramakrishnan’s display to Nguyen’s communications, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Ramakrishnan’s selection and automatic execution to Nguyen’s remedial measure, helping “efficiency of device operation, including software application execution, hardware operation, and power consumption at end devices such as information handling systems operated by an end user” (0011), and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 22 is moot in view of Shaburov. Claims 23-26 are rejected in view of reevaluation of Nguyen (See 103 Rejection)
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 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, 17-21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, and 17-21, and 23-26 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 9 and 14 includes limitations for environmental impact assessment, including:
Receiving power metrics from metrics sources...
Determining environmental impact metrics that represent amounts of CO2 emissions...
Comparing the environmental impact metrics with a predefined CO2 emissions benchmark...
In response to determining that the environmental impact metrics exceed the predefined CO2 emissions benchmark, generating a prompt identifying at least one corrective action...
Outputting, during an active virtual-meeting session (under BRI this is descriptive of the time)....for display to a participant of a virtual meeting...environmental impact indicators...a prompt with a suggestion for executing a remedial measure...
In response to a user input selecting, via the prompt, an option to execute a remedial measure that reduces the CO2 emissions...
The elements above recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the identified elements recite an abstract idea relating to Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because each of the steps can be performed in the human mind, and relating to Certain methods of organizing human activity because the claimed functions describe managing personal behavior (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
As a result, claim 1, 9, and 14 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2, 5-8, 12-13, 17-21, and 23-26 further narrow certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1, 9, and 14.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1, 9 and 14 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1, 9, and 14 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include computer, server, distributed computer system, user interface, the monitoring server, processors, data storage devices, machine-readable instructions, computer-readable medium. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea.
The limitation, “a user interface that concurrently displays:(i) environmental impact indicators derived from the environmental impact metrics representing resource usage of the distributed computer system; and(ii) the prompt identifying the at least one corrective action predicted to reduce the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system” fails to change the function of the display in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information. Because the claimed display functions are broadly claimed and are directed to the basic functions of display technology, the claims do not improve the functioning of the display and do not improve the technical field of visualization.
The limitation, “and in response to a user input selecting, via the prompt, an option to execute a remedial measure that reduces the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system, automatically executing, by the monitoring server, the remedial measure to reduce the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system” is broadly recited and generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h);
As a result, claim 1, 9, and 14 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2, 5-8, 12-13, 17-21, and 23-26 include no additional elements beyond those recited with respect to the claims above and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above. In Claim 23, ‘machine learning” generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h);
Thus, Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, 17-21, and 23-26 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1, 9, and 14 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1, 9, and 14 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements include computer, server, user interface, distributed computer system, processors, data storage devices, machine-readable instructions, computer-readable medium. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, Examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because these elements are generic computing elements performing generic computing functions and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer under MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or recite generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 9 and 14 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
The limitation, “a user interface that concurrently displays:(i) environmental impact indicators derived from the environmental impact metrics representing resource usage of the distributed computer system; and(ii) the prompt identifying the at least one corrective action predicted to reduce the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system” fails to change the function of the display in a meaningful way that goes beyond a general link to display technology or beyond generic and routine display functions for displaying information. Because the claimed display functions are broadly claimed and are directed to the basic functions of display technology, the claims do not improve the functioning of the display and do not improve the technical field of visualization.
The limitation, “and in response to a user input selecting, via the prompt, an option to execute a remedial measure that reduces the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system, automatically executing, by the monitoring server, the remedial measure to reduce the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system” is still broadly recited and generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h);
Claims 2, 5-8, 12-13, 17-21, and 24-26 include no additional elements beyond those recited with respect to the claims above. In Claim 23, the ‘machine learning” generally links the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under MPEP 2106.05(h); As a result, Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, 17-21, and 23-26 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, 17-21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, 17-20, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (20250111316) in view of Ramakrishnan (20240146871)
Regarding Claim 1, Nguyen discloses:
An automated computer-implemented process executed by a monitoring server for real- time environmental impact assessment of a distributed computer system, the process comprising: (Abstract, 0005 – computer, processor, instructions, computer-readable storage medium)
receiving, by the monitoring server, power metrics from metrics sources, the power metrics representing power usage by resources of the distributed computer system; (0041-0042 - In various embodiments, system 100 may determine the actual emissions for attendees of tracked meetings (Block 504). Various factors can be used to determine the carbon emissions incurred in support of a virtual meeting. Examples of relevant factors may include duration of the meeting, bandwidth consumption for the meeting from each participant, video status (i.e., on or off), number of participants, location of participants, type of client devices 102 used, power consumption of client devices 102 used, electricity consumption-emission factors, type of meeting (e.g., business meeting, event, or conference), supporting applications used during the meeting (e.g., recording meeting app), or other factors that can impact emissions. Bandwidth use for a meeting can be calculated based on the number of participants and video quality configuration or bitrate used by participants. Some examples can consider the percentage of renewable energy used to support the meeting, which can be determined based on participant locations and energy mixtures at the participant locations.
determining, by the monitoring server, environmental impact metrics that represent amounts of CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system based on the power metrics and stored emissions factors corresponding to energy sources supplying the resources; (0041-0042 - In various embodiments, system 100 may determine the actual emissions for attendees of tracked meetings (Block 504). Various factors can be used to determine the carbon emissions incurred in support of a virtual meeting.; “power consumption of client devices 102 used, electricity consumption-emission factors”; 0056 – CO2 emissions)
comparing, by the monitoring server, environmental impact metrics with a predefined CO2 emissions benchmark; in response to determining that the environmental impact metrics are less than the CO2 emissions benchmark; generating, by the monitoring server, a prompt identifying at least one corrective action predicted to reduce the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system; outputting, during an active virtual-meeting session, to a participant of a virtual meeting a user interface that concurrently communicates (i) environmental impact indicators derived from the environmental impact metrics representing resource usage of the distributed computer system, and (ii) the prompt identifying the at least one corrective action predicted to reduce the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system. (0053- In various embodiments, system 100 can calculate the emissions reduction of the virtual meeting based on the actual emissions values and estimated baseline values of attendees (Block 508). The emission reduction or emission savings of each individual attendee is the difference between the individual's actual emissions value (environment impact metric) and the individual's baseline emissions value (CO2 emission benchmark);
0054- In various embodiments, system 100 ingests actual emissions, baseline emissions, and emissions reduction values of individual attendees and of the virtual meeting (Block 510). The actual emissions, baseline emissions, and emissions reduction values can be processed at regular intervals or on demand to generate reports or interfaces described herein. In some examples, notifications are automatically sent to an admin account in response to threshold emissions values being hit by individuals, teams, or across an enterprise. Some embodiments can send messages to individuals or teams recommending conservation techniques for meetings such as holding more meetings virtually, turning off video, turning off recording, or otherwise suggesting settings to reduce bandwidth consumption of virtual meetings.
[0056] Systems of the present disclosure may educate and inform users and entities about their CO2 emissions (environment impact indicators derived from the environment impact metrics representing resource usage of the distributed computer system), reduction methods of CO2 emissions and other CO2 emission possibilities, whether in the present meeting or during a future meeting. Recommendations or policy changes can be made in real time or near real time.
Nguyen does not explicitly state the environmental impact metrics exceed the CO2 emissions benchmark, nor the communication is a display; Ramakrishnan in analogous art discloses these limitations (Abstract - a processor to determine a videoconferencing CO2 emissions value that exceeds a threshold value, based on the determined CO2 emissions value and power consumed during execution of a videoconferencing application at the client information handling system, the processor to identify a currently active, user-adjustable videoconferencing policy setting for the videoconferencing application, and the network interface device to transmit a recommended CO2 reduction instruction for display at the client information handling system to de-activate the user-adjustable videoconferencing policy setting to limit the videoconferencing CO2 emissions value to the CO2 emissions threshold value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Ramakrishnan’s determination that CO2 exceeds a threshold value to Nguyen’s comparison of environmental impact metric and CO2 emissions, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Ramakrishnan’s display to Nguyen’s communications, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Nguyen does not explicitly state: Ramakrishnan discloses: in response to a user input selecting, via the prompt, an option to execute a remedial measure that reduces the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system, automatically executing, by the monitoring server, the remedial measure to reduce the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system. (0071-In an embodiment in which the user selects (a prompt) to implement one or more of the recommended instructions displayed via the GUI 291, the recommendation agent 290 may work in tandem with the power analytics module 240 to adjust policy settings for the videoconferencing application to implement the recommended and user-approved instructions. For example, in an embodiment in which the user has chosen to implement the recommended instruction to deactivate the camera 247 during the videoconferencing application user session, the power analytics module 240 may adjust the policy videoconference settings for the videoconferencing application to deactivate the camera 247, or may limit or cease power consumption by the camera 247. In another example, in an embodiment in which the user chooses to implement a recommended instruction to deactivate a visual effects filter of the videoconferencing application, such as application of a virtual background, the power analytics module 240 may adjust the policy settings for the videoconferencing application to deactivate the visual effects feature(s) of the videoconferencing application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Ramakrishnan’s selection and automatic execution to Nguyen’s remedial measure, helping “efficiency of device operation, including software application execution, hardware operation, and power consumption at end devices such as information handling systems operated by an end user” (0011), and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Nguyen discloses: The process of claim 1, wherein the determining environmental impact metrics includes computing CO2 emissions of the resources used by the distributed computer system based on the power usage by the resources. (0041-0042 - Various factors can be used to determine the carbon emissions incurred in support of a virtual meeting. Examples of relevant factors may include duration of the meeting, bandwidth consumption for the meeting from each participant, video status (i.e., on or off), number of participants, location of participants, type of client devices 102 used, power consumption of client devices 102 used, electricity consumption-emission factors, type of meeting (e.g., business meeting, event, or conference), supporting applications used during the meeting (e.g., recording meeting app), or other factors that can impact emissions. Bandwidth use for a meeting can be calculated based on the number of participants and video quality configuration or bitrate used by participants. Some examples can consider the percentage of renewable energy used to support the meeting, which can be determined based on participant locations and energy mixtures at the participant locations.
Regarding Claim 5, Nguyen discloses The process of claim 1, wherein the metrics sources include at least one of a virtual object or a physical object. (0041-0042 - Various factors can be used to determine the carbon emissions incurred in support of a virtual meeting. Examples of relevant factors may include duration of the meeting, bandwidth consumption for the meeting from each participant, video status (i.e., on or off), number of participants, location of participants, type of client devices 102 used, power consumption of client devices 102 used, (physical object) electricity consumption-emission factors, type of meeting (e.g., business meeting, event, or conference), supporting applications used during the meeting (e.g., recording meeting app), (virtual object) or other factors that can impact emissions
Regarding Claim 6, Nguyen discloses The process of claim 1, wherein the metrics sources include a resource for the distributed computer system. (0041-0042 - Various factors can be used to determine the carbon emissions incurred in support of a virtual meeting. Examples of relevant factors may include...bandwidth consumption for the meeting from each participant, video status (i.e., on or off), number of participants, location of participants, type of client devices 102 used, power consumption of client devices 102 used, electricity consumption-emission factors...supporting applications used during the meeting (e.g., recording meeting app)...
Regarding Claim 7, Nguyen discloses The process of claim 1, wherein the determining the environmental impact metrics includes aggregating the power metrics from the metrics sources with at least one of data transmission rates, resource utilization levels, and cooling requirements, and converting these aggregated metrics into a representative amount of CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system. 0043- Continuing the example, meet_net_cons can be set based on the status of the video flag (meet_vid_stat) and the recording flag (meet_rcord_stat). For example, if both are on then internet consumption might be 16 MB; if video is on and recording is off then internet consumption might by 8 MB; if video is off and recording is off then internet consumption might be 0.09 MB; or if video is off and recording is on then internet consumption might be 0.15 MB. (resource utilization levels) Meeting duration and the type of client device 102 can be entered by a user or determined automatically to determine the electricity-consumption-emission factor for each user and client device. For example, meet_elec_cons can be equal to meet_dur*(meet_dev_cons+0.00075). The electricity function can be predetermined for device type. For example, a personal computer might consume about 0.0015 KWh/minute, a laptop might consume about 0.0005 KWh/minute, a tablet might consume about 0.00017 KWh/minute, a smartphone might consume about 0.000083 KWh/minute. WIFI equipment might consume about 0.00075 KWh/minute to maintain internet access, and online streaming might consume about 0.03 kg CO2/MB. (resource utilization levels) As used herein with quantities of electricity consumption or carbon emissions, the term about can mean+/−5%, +/−10%, +/−15%, +/−20%, or +/−25%.
Regarding Claim 8, Nguyen discloses The process of claim 1. Nguyen does not explicitly state: wherein the remedial measure includes at least one of: reducing a number of participants in the virtual meeting; reducing a duration of the virtual meeting; reducing a data transmission rate; or reducing a resolution of a video stream in the virtual meeting. (0054-Some embodiments can send messages to individuals or teams recommending conservation techniques for meetings such as...suggesting settings to reduce bandwidth (maximum rate) consumption of virtual meetings.)
Claims 9, 12 and 13 stand rejected based on the same citations and rationale as applied to Claims 1-2, 5-8 above.
Claims 14 and 17-20 stand rejected based on the same citations and rationale as applied to Claims 1-2, 5-8 above.
Regarding Claim 23, Nguyen discloses: The process of claim 1, wherein the monitoring server employs a smart-alert system that uses a machine-learning model to predict when user actions are likely to cause excessive CO2 emissions and to generate the prompt based on the prediction. (0017- AI Augmentation can include machine learning (ML)... AI systems can generate business intelligence (BI) that is actionable by entity 112 or business actions that are automatically implemented.
0054-The actual emissions, baseline emissions, and emissions reduction values can be processed at regular intervals or on demand to generate reports or interfaces described herein. In some examples, notifications are automatically sent to an admin account in response to threshold emissions values being hit by individuals, teams, or across an enterprise. Some embodiments can send messages to individuals or teams recommending conservation techniques for meetings such as holding more meetings virtually, turning off video, turning off recording, or otherwise suggesting settings to reduce bandwidth consumption of virtual meetings.
[0055] ... AI augmentation 145 can run simulations to determine the emissions cost or savings of changes to behavior in entity 112. AI augmentation 145 can make suggestions for behavior modification, for meeting configuration, or for meeting policies that can save emissions for the entity. In some examples, AI augmentation 145 can take actions by directly modifying virtual meeting configurations, entity requirements for employees to setup virtual meetings, implementing suggestion screens for employees and affiliated meeting hosts during setup, or otherwise acting within limitations to reduce emissions of entity 112.
[0056] Systems of the present disclosure may educate and inform users and entities about their CO2 emissions, reduction methods of CO2 emissions and other CO2 emission possibilities, whether in the present meeting or during a future meeting. Recommendations or policy changes can be made in real time or near real time.
Regarding Claim 24, Nguyen discloses: The process of claim 1, further comprising analyzing historical user behavior and meeting settings using a behavioral-recommendation engine to generate future corrective actions predicted to reduce the CO2 emissions created by the distributed computer system. (0054-The actual emissions, baseline emissions, and emissions reduction values can be processed at regular intervals or on demand to generate reports or interfaces described herein. In some examples, notifications are automatically sent to an admin account in response to threshold emissions values being hit by individuals, teams, or across an enterprise. Some embodiments can send messages to individuals or teams recommending conservation techniques for meetings such as holding more meetings virtually, turning off video, turning off recording, or otherwise suggesting settings to reduce bandwidth consumption of virtual meetings.)
Regarding Claim 25, Nguyen discloses: The process of claim 1, wherein the monitoring server classifies the environmental impact metrics into at least one of a good, medium, or bad emissions range based on comparison with the predefined C02-emissions benchmark. (0054- In various embodiments, system 100 ingests actual emissions, baseline emissions, and emissions reduction values of individual attendees and of the virtual meeting (Block 510). The actual emissions, baseline emissions, and emissions reduction values can be processed at regular intervals or on demand to generate reports or interfaces described herein. In some examples, notifications are automatically sent to an admin account in response to threshold emissions values being hit (bad emissions range) by individuals, teams, or across an enterprise.)
Regarding Claim 26, Nguyen discloses: The process of claim 1, wherein the monitoring server collects both cloud-level metrics and application-level metrics from the distributed computer system to determine the environmental impact metrics.
[0017] In various embodiments, meeting server 140, artificial intelligence (AI) augmentation system 145, and carbon accounting server 150 can comprise one or more servers, a computing cluster, virtualized computing resources, cloud computing resources, (under BRI “cloud-level metrics”) or other computing resources suitable for hosting virtual meetings.
0041-Examples of relevant factors may include...supporting applications (application-level metrics) used during the meeting (e.g., recording meeting app))
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (20250111316) in view of Ramakrishnan (20240146871) in view of Hovhannisyan et al (2021/0027401)
Regarding claim 21, Nguyen discloses “Systems of the present disclosure may educate and inform users and entities about their CO2 emissions, reduction methods of CO2 emissions and other CO2 emission possibilities, wherein the present meeting or during a future meeting.” [0056] Nguyen does not expressly disclose a user interface dynamically updates during the virtual-meeting session to display visual cues corresponding to environmental efficiency levels, including a first color representing an acceptable CO2-emission rate and a second color representing an excessive CO2-emission rate.
Hovhannisyan et al disclose a system for determining sustainability of a virtual infrastructure of a distributed computing system including a display that display sustainability metrics of the objects in a graphical user interface (“GUI”). The GUI displays alerts identifying objects wasting power and at least one recommendation for reducing CO2 emissions and power wastage (Abstract) Hovhannisyan et al further disclose that the GUI may display CO2 emission levels using a color scale. “For example, the color scale may range from green to red with green at one end of the color scale corresponding to CO2 emission and red at the opposite end of the color scale corresponding to high CO2 emissions.” [0128]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Hovhannisyan et al’s color display of computing system CO2 emissions to Nguyen’s in view of Ramakrishnan’s remedial measure, helping to educate and inform users and entities about their CO2 emissions.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen (20250111316) in view of Ramakrishnan (20240146871) in view of Shaburov (20150195491)
Regarding Claim 22, Nguyen discloses: The process of claim 1, wherein the remedial measure comprises automatically “adjusting the videoconference settings for the videoconferencing application to deactivate the camera 247, or limiting power consumption by the camera 247...or adjusting the policy settings for the videoconferencing application to deactivate the visual effects feature(s) of the videoconferencing application” in response to the user input selecting the option to execute the remedial measure. (0071) Nguyen does not explicitly state: automatically reducing at least one of a resolution of a video stream or a data transmission rate of the virtual meeting in response to the user input selecting the option to execute the remedial measure. Shaburov, directed to videoconferencing, discloses this limitation [0045] According to various embodiments of this disclosure, the background modification can be initiated in response to a user request (user input), or in response to detection of a predetermined event. For example, this technology may dynamically monitor one or more network parameters, such as a QoS, bit rate, or network bandwidth. When one of these parameters drops below a predetermined threshold value, the background modification can be initiated in order to reduce data rate associated with the video streaming.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to associate Shaburov’s user selection and automatic execution to Nguyen’s in view of Ramakrishnan’s remedial measure, helping prevent unwanted interruptions or significant degradation of audio and video quality (0003).
Overcoming Prior Art
As stated in the Response to Arguments Section- Claim 22 overcomes 101 but is still rejected under the 103 Section.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rutao Wu whose telephone number is (571)272-6045. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Tariq Hafiz can be reached at 571-272-5350. 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.
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights