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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Per Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment 12/6/24
Claims 1-20 have been canceled.
Claims 21-40 have been newly added.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
CLAIM 21-29 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
STATUTORY CATEGORY: CLAIM 21 describes a process, which does fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, it is deemed non-statutory because “the method” recited in independent claim 21 does not include a hardware or device implementation for performing the method steps. Consequently, the method in accordance with its broadest reasonable interpretation covers a series of acts that can be performed abstractly, by hand or by computer-implementation. Without recitation of an additional element of a hardware processor, memory or structural computer component, the claims are drawn to abstract ideas. Dependent CLAIMS 21-28 likewise, inherit the same rejection from their respective independent claim and are therefore non-statutory.
JUDICIAL EXCEPTION: CLAIMS 21, 29 AND 35 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: determining, during a communication session within which a digital whiteboard is shared with communication session participants via temporary access permissions granted for ones of the communication session participants to access the digital whiteboard, an event occurrence associated with one or both of the communication session or the digital whiteboard; and revoking the temporary access permissions based on the event occurrence to prevent further access to the digital whiteboard by the ones of the communication session participants. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this process covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The process is only invoking a generic computer component that implements the recited abstract idea as instructions (i.e., determining an event occurrence, and revoking the temporary access permissions based on the event occurrence).
Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because other than reciting hardware, such as “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, with “by a processor” language, the claim would merely invoke a generic computing tool to perform the determining of an event occurrence and revocation of temporary access permissions. The nominal recitation of a generic processor does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping and is not a practical application of the abstract idea, because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). As result, CLAIMS 21, 29 and 35 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
III. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
IV. CLAIMS 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JABER et al (US 2020/0372140) in view of FIELDMAN (USPN 11,463,499).
Per claim 1, JABER et al teach a method, comprising:
determining, during a communication session within which a digital whiteboard is shared with communication session participants via temporary access permissions granted for ones of the communication session participants, an event occurrence associated with one or both of the communication session or the digital whiteboard (paras 0027, 0033, 0057-58—determining a meeting event associated with a real time communication session, enabling temporary data access by a user to attendees/participants during the meeting event); and
revoking the temporary access permissions based on the event occurrence to prevent further access by the ones of the communication session participants (Abstract, paras 0038, 0050, 0057, 0077, 0082, 84—modify the temporary data access selections by revoking or disabling the temporary access at the termination of the meeting event and/or if the user is no longer a participant at the meeting event).
JABER et al teach the limitations as applied above, yet fail to explicitly teach providing access the digital whiteboard and preventing further access to the digital whiteboard. However, FIELDMAN teaches providing access to files shared in a session, which includes whiteboard content (col.16 line 62-col.17 line 44, col.20 line 62-col.21 line 14, col.21 line 47-col.22 line 3, col.28 line 52-col.29 line 46) and removing temporary access permissions (col.36 lines 20-28, col.37 lines 51-59, col.39 line 65-col.40 line 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention was made to combine the teachings of JABER et al with FIELDMAN for the purpose of enabling and disabling temporary access to whiteboard. Granting and revoking temporary access to session content is well-known in the art for managing access to sessions and events.
Claims 29 and 35 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 21, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 22, JABER et al with FIELDMAN teach the method of claim 21, JABER et al further teach the method wherein determining the event occurrence associated with the one or both of the communication session or the digital whiteboard comprises one or more of: determining a termination of the communication session; determining a disconnection of an owner of the digital whiteboard from the communication session; or determining a termination of an active session for the digital whiteboard during the communication session (Abstract, paras 0038, 0080—disable or revoking temporary access and terminating the meeting event at the close of the session).
Claim 39 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 22, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 23, JABER et al with FIELDMAN teach the method of claim 21, FIELDMAN further teaches the method wherein revoking the temporary access permissions based on the event occurrence to prevent the further access to the digital whiteboard by the ones of the communication session participants comprises: deleting data indicative of the temporary access permissions from a data store (col.29 lines 36-46—temporary access permission given then deleted from the database when the session ends).
Claim 32 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 23, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 24, JABER et al with FIELDMAN teach the method of claim 21, JABER et al further teach the method comprising: obtaining a list of the communication session participants; determining access levels for the communication session participants; and granting the temporary access permissions according to the access levels (paras 0033, 0050-52—granting the specified access level defined by user for the duration of a meeting, specify the access level for one or more meeting participants and granting temporary access according to the access levels).
Claim 31 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 24, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 25, JABER et al with FIELDMAN teach the method of claim 21, FIELDMAN further teaches the method comprising: determining the temporary access permissions based on previous access granted to each of the ones of the communication session participants (col.18 lines 42-58, col.37 line 51-col.38 line 50—determining temporary access permission based on previous session activity and access granted; JABER et al: paras 0081-82—previous session activity of participant used in determining access permission for reenabling the session).
Claim 33 contains limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 25, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 26, JABER et al with FIELDMAN teach the method of claim 21, FIELDMAN further teaches the method comprising: granting the temporary access permissions by enforcing a participant list that matches a list of the communication session participants (col.18 line 62-col.19 line 28, col.20 lines 6-18 and 39-65, col.21 lines 5-13, col.42 lines 28-31—granting temporary access permissions based on session participant list; JABER et al: paras 0002, 0052, 0054—invitees list of participants).
Claims 36-37 contain limitations that are substantially equivalent to the claim limitations of claim 26, and are therefore rejected under the same basis.
Per claim 27, JABER et al with FIELDMAN teach the method of claim 21, JABER et al further teach the method wherein the communication session corresponds to one of a real-time communication or an asynchronous communication (paras 0027, 0043—real time communication session).
Per claim 28, JABER et al with FIELDMAN teach the method of claim 21, FIELDMAN further teaches the method wherein the communication session and the digital whiteboard are facilitated using a unified communications as a service platform (Abstract, col.6 lines 13-43, col.7 lines 9-31, col.30 lines 47-63—communication video service, cross-platform conference and electronic whiteboard).
Per claim 30, JABER et al with FIELDMAN teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 29, FIELDMAN further teaches the method wherein the event occurrence corresponds to one or more of a termination of the communication session, a time limit associated with the digital whiteboard elapsing, a change in content of the digital whiteboard, or a disconnection of an owner of the digital whiteboard from the communication session (col.7 lines 9-31—expiration times, time-based criteria; JABER et al: Abstract, paras 0030, 0033, 0043, 0058—time restriction, meeting timer, scheduled meeting times and termination).
Per claim 34, JABER et al with FIELDMAN teach the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 29, wherein the communication session is a video conference (FIELDMAN: Abstract, col.22 lines 35-62—video conference; JABER et al: paras 0029, 0031-32—conference call video data).
Per claim 38, JABER et al with FIELDMAN teach the system of claim 35, wherein an owner of the digital whiteboard is associated with a first organization and the ones of the communication session participants are associated with a second organization (FIELDMAN: col.22 lines 47-62—organization; JABER et al: paras 0061, 0066—organization access).
Per claim 40, JABER et al with FIELDMAN teach the system of claim 35, wherein the communication session is one of a video conference or a group chat (FIELDMAN: Abstract, col.12 lines 20-61, col.14 lines 24-32, col.22 lines 35-62—video conference and group chat; JABER et al: paras 0009, 0029, 0031-32, 0070—group of participants in a meeting, conference call video data).
Conclusion
V. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2023/0143579; US 2019/0110298; US 2023/0384913.
VI. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIE D. SHINGLES whose telephone number is (571) 272-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 10am-7pm.
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, Kamal Divecha can be reached on 571-272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KRISTIE D SHINGLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453