DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Examiner’s communication of 2/2/26, Applicant, on 6/2/2026, amended claims 1, 11, and 20, and cancelled claim 2. Claims 1, and 3-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant has not yet filed an IDS for this Application. As such, no IDS has been considered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 USC 101 rejections of claims 1 and 3-20 regarding abstract ideas are maintained in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations.
Revised 35 USC 102 rejections of claims 1 and 3-20 are applied in light of Applicant’s amendments and explanations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Here, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, Examiner finds that the Applicant invented a method and system for determining how a particular user would attend a meeting based on meeting requirements. Examiner formulates an abstract idea analysis, following the framework described in the MPEP as follows:
Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category, namely a "method" (claims 1 and 3-10) and "system" (claims 11-20).
Step 2A - Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, regarding claim 1:
identifying… a meeting scheduled for a user;
determining… based upon factors of the meeting, an attendee appearance type identifying how the user should appear at the meeting;
providing, to the user, a recommendation related to the meeting in view of the attendee appearance type for the meeting;
generating, by the meeting type identification system and based upon the attendee appearance type, a configuration command configured to change at least one characteristic of a computing device associated with the user
Independent claims 11 and 20 recite substantially similar claim language.
Dependent claims 3-10, and 12-19 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claims 1, 11, and 20 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s) to particular data characterization and/or additional data analyses performed as part of the abstract idea.
The limitations in claims 1 and 3-20 above falling well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts, specifically the claims are found to correspond to the category of:
"Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)" as the limitations identified above are directed to determining how a particular user would attend a meeting based on meeting requirements and thus is a method of organizing human activity including at least commercial or business interactions or relations and/or a management of user personal behavior; and/or
"Mental processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)" as the limitations identified above include mere data observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, e.g. including user observation and evaluation of determining how a particular user would attend a meeting based on meeting requirements, which is capable of being performed mentally and/or using pen and paper.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-20 are found to clearly be directed to the abstract idea identified above because the claims, as a whole, fail to integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the claims recite the additional elements of:
"wherein the providing the recommendation comprises providing the recommendation within a graphical user interface on a display device " (claims 9 and 19) however the aforementioned elements directed to the receiving of user input/selection of data to view via a dashboard and displaying corresponding data via the dashboard merely amount to generic GUI elements of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract idea of analysis and review/visualization to a particular field of use/technological environment of a GUI dashboard (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore the GUI dashboard input and display of data fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
" a meeting type identification system / A system, the system comprising: a processor; a memory device that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to: / A product, the product comprising: a computer-readable storage device that stores executable code that, when executed by a processor, causes the product to: " (claims 1, 11, 20), “transmitting the configuration command to the computing device via a computer network,” (claims 1, 11, 20), “wherein the determining the attendee appearance type comprises providing the factors to a trained artificial intelligence model, wherein the artificial intelligence model is trained to analyze the factors of the meeting,” (claims 4 and 14) however the aforementioned elements merely amount to generic components of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, furthermore the high-level recitation of receiving data from a generic "building system" is at most an attempt to limit the abstract to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.0S(h), e.g.: "For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).") and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPE 2106.05(g)) and thus further fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 3-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to a general purpose computer that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment (MPEP 2106.0S(f)), including merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use of determining how a particular user would attend a meeting based on meeting requirements via a "meeting type identification system," as explained above, and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering or output, (MPEP 2106.0S(g)), as identified above, which is further found under step 2B to be merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to determining impact of service cases on KPls for various levels of building components and visualizing the associated metrics according to user desired/selected levels of granularity.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis.
For further authority and guidance, see:
MPEP § 2106
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(A)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2024/0388458 to Gatzke et al. (hereafter referred to as Gatzke).
As per claim 1, Gatzke teaches:
A method, the method comprising: identifying, using a meeting type identification system, a meeting scheduled for a user (Paragraph Number [0038] teaches when a virtual meeting host/organizer attempts to schedule an on-line meeting, in the client interface they can navigate to a calendar showing a combined view of free/busy availability for all of the invited meeting participants. In addition to the free/busy information, the virtual meeting back-end cloud service may also retrieve the forecasted energy resources required to host that meeting. So, in a non-limiting example, for each particular block of minutes in the calendar display (where the block of time may be a system admin configurable amount of time), the virtual meeting system can determine the forecasted carbon footprint requirements (or sustainability levels) for that meeting. Paragraph Number [0056] teaches although a specific embodiment for a network 100 suitable for utilizing a reduced size video transmission data rate within a virtual meeting is described above with respect to FIG. 1, any of a variety of systems and/or processes may be utilized in accordance with embodiments of the disclosure).
determining, using the meeting type identification system and based upon factors of the meeting, an attendee appearance type for the user, the attendee appearance type identifying how the user should access and engage within the meeting (Paragraph Number [0082] teaches a flowchart depicting a process 600 for establishing a sustainable virtual meeting in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosure is shown. As shown, in various embodiments, virtual meeting settings may be gathered, which may include, by way of non-limiting example, one or more settings of the virtual meeting such as the number of participants, the camera settings of those participants (camera on or off; high-definition versus standard-definition, etc.), the purpose of the meeting, the configuration of the meeting (one-to-many, many-to-many, etc.), the location, room, and/or the time and date of the meeting (block 610). These settings may be utilized to determine the virtual meeting platform and one or more features to be used. Paragraph Number [0094] teaches a flowchart depicting a process 800 for providing virtual meeting options with a plurality of indications in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosure is shown. In many embodiments, the process 800 can determine a virtual meeting type (block 810). As described above, the meeting type may be configured as a one-to-one, many-to-one, or a many-to-many type meeting. Other considerations may include identifying the purpose and format of the virtual meeting, such as whether it is a conference call, video conference, or webinar. It is envisioned that the virtual meeting type could be used to determine one or more virtual meeting options and sustainability metrics that will be used to generate the options. Paragraph Number [0095] teaches the process 800 may receive participant data (block 820). Participant data can vary but may include, for example, location, language, time zone, audio/visual settings, and/or accessibility needs. The participant data may be an important component in determining the virtual meeting options that can be generated, as it may help identify the technology and language requirements, as well as any accessibility needs.).
providing, to the user, a recommendation related to the meeting in view of the attendee appearance type for the meeting (Paragraph Number [0018] teaches providing the one or more virtual meeting options includes displaying one or more suggested virtual meeting times and configurations based on the determined sustainability threshold. Paragraph Number [0089] teaches gathering virtual meeting settings can involve selecting the appropriate software, hardware, and other technology required to set up and run the virtual meeting (block 720). As discussed above with reference to FIG. 6, this gathering may include selecting a video conferencing platform, setting up microphones and speakers, and ensuring that all participants have access to the necessary technology. Other settings that may need to be considered include the layout of the virtual meeting, the types of presentations or materials that will be shared, and the level of interactivity required, camera settings, participant device settings, virtual meeting type, etc. Paragraph Number [0094] teaches a flowchart depicting a process 800 for providing virtual meeting options with a plurality of indications in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosure is shown. In many embodiments, the process 800 can determine a virtual meeting type (block 810). As described above, the meeting type may be configured as a one-to-one, many-to-one, or a many-to-many type meeting. Other considerations may include identifying the purpose and format of the virtual meeting, such as whether it is a conference call, video conference, or webinar. It is envisioned that the virtual meeting type could be used to determine one or more virtual meeting options and sustainability metrics that will be used to generate the options).
generating, by the meeting type identification system and based upon the attendee appearance type, a configuration command configured to change at least one characteristic of a computing device associated with the user (Paragraph Number [0018] teaches providing the one or more virtual meeting options includes displaying one or more suggested virtual meeting times and configurations based on the determined sustainability threshold. Paragraph Number [0089] teaches gathering virtual meeting settings can involve selecting the appropriate software, hardware, and other technology required to set up and run the virtual meeting (block 720). As discussed above with reference to FIG. 6, this gathering may include selecting a video conferencing platform, setting up microphones and speakers, and ensuring that all participants have access to the necessary technology. Other settings that may need to be considered include the layout of the virtual meeting, the types of presentations or materials that will be shared, and the level of interactivity required, camera settings, participant device settings, virtual meeting type, etc. Paragraph Number [0094] teaches a flowchart depicting a process 800 for providing virtual meeting options with a plurality of indications in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosure is shown. In many embodiments, the process 800 can determine a virtual meeting type (block 810). As described above, the meeting type may be configured as a one-to-one, many-to-one, or a many-to-many type meeting. Other considerations may include identifying the purpose and format of the virtual meeting, such as whether it is a conference call, video conference, or webinar. It is envisioned that the virtual meeting type could be used to determine one or more virtual meeting options and sustainability metrics that will be used to generate the options).
transmitting the configuration command to the computing device via a computer network (Paragraph Number [0052] teaches a conceptual illustration of a network with network devices suitable for conducting virtual meetings in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosure is shown. In many embodiments, the network 100 may comprise a plurality of devices that are configured to transmit and receive data related to providing, recording, and processing virtual meetings (i.e., online collaborations). In various embodiments, virtual meeting service servers 110 are connected to a wide-area network such as, for example, the Internet 120. In further embodiments, virtual meeting service servers 110 can be configured to transmit a variety of data across the Internet 120 to any number of computing devices such as, but not limited to, personal computers 130, virtual presentation devices 140, and mobile computing devices including laptop computers 170, cellular phones 160, portable tablet computers 180 and wearable computing devices 190. In additional embodiments, virtual meeting data may be mirrored or otherwise supplemented in additional cloud-based service provider servers or edge network systems).
As per claim 11, Gatzke teaches:
A system, the system comprising: a processor; a memory device that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to: (Paragraph Number [0112] teaches the device 1000 may include an environment 1002 such as a baseboard or “motherboard,” in physical embodiments that can be configured as a printed circuit board with a multitude of components or devices connected by way of a system bus or other electrical communication paths. Conceptually, in virtualized embodiments, the environment 1002 may be a virtual environment that encompasses and executes the remaining components and resources of the device 1000. In more embodiments, one or more controller(s) 1004, such as, but not limited to, central processing units (CPUs), processors, etc. that can be configured to operate in conjunction with a chipset 1006. The controller(s) 1004 can be standard programmable CPUs that perform arithmetic and logical operations necessary for the operation of the device 1000).
The remainder of the claim limitations are substantially similar to those found in claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons put forth in regard to claim 1.
As per claim 20, Gatzke teaches:
A product, the product comprising: a computer-readable storage device that stores executable code that, when executed by a processor, causes the product to: (Paragraph Number [0112] teaches the device 1000 may include an environment 1002 such as a baseboard or “motherboard,” in physical embodiments that can be configured as a printed circuit board with a multitude of components or devices connected by way of a system bus or other electrical communication paths. Conceptually, in virtualized embodiments, the environment 1002 may be a virtual environment that encompasses and executes the remaining components and resources of the device 1000. In more embodiments, one or more controller(s) 1004, such as, but not limited to, central processing units (CPUs), processors, etc. that can be configured to operate in conjunction with a chipset 1006. The controller(s) 1004 can be standard programmable CPUs that perform arithmetic and logical operations necessary for the operation of the device 1000).
The remainder of the claim limitations are substantially similar to those found in claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons put forth in regard to claim 1.
As per claims 3 and 13, Gatzke teaches each of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively.
In addition, Gatzke teaches:
wherein the determining the attendee appearance type comprises determining the meeting is at least one of: an in-person meeting, a virtual meeting with an enabled image capture feed, and a virtual meeting with a disabled image capture feed (Paragraph Number [0055] teaches virtual meetings can be established that have a certain configuration. Based upon this configuration, various sustainability attributes data can be collected. Different video transmission rates for example, can be selected based on the collected sustainability attributes data which allows for the transmission of a reduced size video transmission within a video stream of the virtual meeting. Other configurations may occur such as one or more participants utilizing a camera while others do not. These various settings, along with other such as power source type, and time of meeting may result in a variety of different sustainability levels associated with one or more virtual meeting time options. As described herein, different indications can be given to participants to encourage the selection of various virtual meeting options in order to facilitate more sustainable virtual meetings. (See also Paragraph Number [0094])).
As per claims 4 and 14, Gatzke teaches each of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively.
In addition, Gatzke teaches:
wherein the determining the attendee appearance type comprises providing the factors to a trained artificial intelligence model, wherein the artificial intelligence model is trained to analyze the factors of the meeting (Paragraph Number [0129] teaches data may be processed into a format usable by one or more machine-learning (ML) model(s) 1026 (e.g., feature vectors), and or other pre-processing techniques. The ML model(s) 1026 may be any type of ML model, such as any of various supervised models, reinforcement models, and/or unsupervised models. The ML model(s) 1026 may include one or more of linear regression models, logistic regression models, decision trees, Naïve Bayes models, neural networks, k-means cluster models, random forest models, and/or other types of ML model(s) 1026. Paragraph Number [0130] teaches the ML model(s) 1026 can be configured to generate inferences to make predictions or draw conclusions from data. An inference can be considered the output of a process of applying a model to new data. This can occur by learning from historical data and use that learning to predict future outcomes. These predictions are based on patterns and relationships discovered within the data. To generate an inference, the trained model can take input data and produce a prediction or a decision. The input data can be in various forms, such as images, audio, text, or numerical data, depending on the type of problem the model was trained to solve. The output of the model can also vary depending on the problem, and can be a single number, a probability distribution, a set of labels, a decision about an action to take, etc.).
and is configured to output the attendee appearance type and a confidence level corresponding to the attendee appearance type (Paragraph Number [0018] teaches providing the one or more virtual meeting options includes displaying one or more suggested virtual meeting times and configurations based on the determined sustainability threshold. Paragraph Number [0089] teaches gathering virtual meeting settings can involve selecting the appropriate software, hardware, and other technology required to set up and run the virtual meeting (block 720). As discussed above with reference to FIG. 6, this gathering may include selecting a video conferencing platform, setting up microphones and speakers, and ensuring that all participants have access to the necessary technology. Other settings that may need to be considered include the layout of the virtual meeting, the types of presentations or materials that will be shared, and the level of interactivity required, camera settings, participant device settings, virtual meeting type, etc. Paragraph Number [0094] teaches a flowchart depicting a process 800 for providing virtual meeting options with a plurality of indications in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosure is shown. In many embodiments, the process 800 can determine a virtual meeting type (block 810). As described above, the meeting type may be configured as a one-to-one, many-to-one, or a many-to-many type meeting. Other considerations may include identifying the purpose and format of the virtual meeting, such as whether it is a conference call, video conference, or webinar. It is envisioned that the virtual meeting type could be used to determine one or more virtual meeting options and sustainability metrics that will be used to generate the options. (See also Paragraph Number [0066] for scores related to evaluations and attributes of the meeting that are equivalent to a confidence level)).
As per claims 5 and 15, Gatzke teaches each of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively.
In addition, Gatzke teaches:
wherein the determining the attendee appearance type comprises utilizing historical information corresponding to meetings having a similarity to the meeting (Paragraph Number [0066] teaches when generating various scores, metrics, or other evaluations of the network devices within a network 200, the sustainability attributes can vary based on a variety of factors such as the time of day, current network traffic, expected network traffic, and historical usage patterns. Paragraph Number [0096] teaches the process 800 can check historical data from past virtual meetings (block 830). This step can involve reviewing data from past virtual meetings, such as energy usage, attendance rates, participation rates, settings, location, and/or feedback. In this way, accessing and utilizing historical data can help identify more optimal virtual meeting options and potential sustainability practices that can be incorporated into the current virtual meeting. Paragraph Number [0097] teaches attendance records may also be analyzed in some embodiments, which may include data regarding the number of participants who attended past virtual meetings, as well as their geographical location and time zone. In some embodiments, meeting duration metrics may be reviewed, which can include data regarding the length of past virtual meetings, including the start and end times. The historical data may also include information or data regarding the types of technology used during past virtual meetings, such as the video conferencing platform, file-sharing tools, and other collaboration software).
As per claims 6 and 16, Gatzke teaches each of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively.
In addition, Gatzke teaches:
wherein the providing a recommendation comprises identifying a different time for the meeting based upon the attendee appearance type and attendee appearance types for other meetings near the different time and recommending movement of the meeting to the different time (Paragraph Number [0091] teaches in response to the virtual meeting settings and sustainability attributes being identified, one or more virtual meeting options can be provided (block 740). In a number of embodiments, these options can be configured to take into account the needs and preferences of the participants, as well as the sustainability goals of the meeting. For example, options might include different video conferencing platforms, different virtual meeting layouts, various meeting times, a combination of available participant settings, and/or different levels of interactivity. Paragraph Number [0066] teaches when generating various scores, metrics, or other evaluations of the network devices within a network 200, the sustainability attributes can vary based on a variety of factors such as the time of day, current network traffic, expected network traffic, and historical usage patterns. For example, a network router may receive energy from a solar power source during the day but receives energy from a coal-powered power plant at night. In these instances, an averaged score may be used, or a unique score may be generated at the time of operation. In another example, network traffic may be such that removing one or more network devices from the optimal sustainable data paths may negatively affect user experiences, such as when a sporting event occurs. As such, scores may be generated at numerous times depending on the desired application. Paragraph Number [0018] teaches providing the one or more virtual meeting options includes displaying one or more suggested virtual meeting times and configurations based on the determined sustainability threshold.).
As per claims 7 and 17, Gatzke teaches each of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively.
In addition, Gatzke teaches:
wherein the providing the recommendation comprises a recommendation regarding an appearance of the user for the meeting (Paragraph Number [0018] teaches providing the one or more virtual meeting options includes displaying one or more suggested virtual meeting times and configurations based on the determined sustainability threshold. Paragraph Number [0089] teaches gathering virtual meeting settings can involve selecting the appropriate software, hardware, and other technology required to set up and run the virtual meeting (block 720). As discussed above with reference to FIG. 6, this gathering may include selecting a video conferencing platform, setting up microphones and speakers, and ensuring that all participants have access to the necessary technology. Other settings that may need to be considered include the layout of the virtual meeting, the types of presentations or materials that will be shared, and the level of interactivity required, camera settings, participant device settings, virtual meeting type, etc. Paragraph Number [0094] teaches a flowchart depicting a process 800 for providing virtual meeting options with a plurality of indications in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosure is shown. In many embodiments, the process 800 can determine a virtual meeting type (block 810). As described above, the meeting type may be configured as a one-to-one, many-to-one, or a many-to-many type meeting. Other considerations may include identifying the purpose and format of the virtual meeting, such as whether it is a conference call, video conference, or webinar. It is envisioned that the virtual meeting type could be used to determine one or more virtual meeting options and sustainability metrics that will be used to generate the options).
As per claims 8 and 18, Gatzke teaches each of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively.
In addition, Gatzke teaches:
wherein the providing the recommendation comprises identifying, by accessing a secondary source, elements that affect an attendance of the user at the meeting and wherein the providing the recommendation is based upon the elements (Paragraph Number [0066] teaches when generating various scores, metrics, or other evaluations of the network devices within a network 200, the sustainability attributes can vary based on a variety of factors such as the time of day, current network traffic, expected network traffic, and historical usage patterns. Paragraph Number [0096] teaches the process 800 can check historical data from past virtual meetings (block 830). This step can involve reviewing data from past virtual meetings, such as energy usage, attendance rates, participation rates, settings, location, and/or feedback. In this way, accessing and utilizing historical data can help identify more optimal virtual meeting options and potential sustainability practices that can be incorporated into the current virtual meeting. Paragraph Number [0097] teaches Attendance records may also be analyzed in some embodiments, which may include data regarding the number of participants who attended past virtual meetings, as well as their geographical location and time zone. In some embodiments, meeting duration metrics may be reviewed, which can include data regarding the length of past virtual meetings, including the start and end times. The historical data may also include information or data regarding the types of technology used during past virtual meetings, such as the video conferencing platform, file-sharing tools, and other collaboration software. (See also Paragraph Number [0039] in regard to accessing a datacenter that provides meeting statistics and information that relate to appearance of users)).
As per claims 9 and 19, Gatzke teaches each of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 respectively.
In addition, Gatzke teaches:
wherein the providing the recommendation comprises providing the recommendation within a graphical user interface on a display device (Paragraph Number [0075] teaches a conceptual illustration of a virtual meeting scheduling interface 500 with a plurality of indications 550-570 associated with sustainability in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosure is shown. When setting up virtual meetings, a host and/or participant may be able to select or vote for a time that is suitable for them. Often, the level of sustainability associated with each virtual meeting time and/or option may vary greatly. Thus, in many embodiments, a virtual meeting scheduling interface 500 can be configured to display one or more virtual meeting options that is associated with a plurality of indications 550-570 that can be based off of a sustainability threshold that is assigned to the virtual meeting. Paragraph Number [0018] teaches providing the one or more virtual meeting options includes displaying one or more suggested virtual meeting times and configurations based on the determined sustainability threshold).
As per claim 10, Gatzke teaches each of the limitations of claim 1.
In addition, Gatzke teaches:
wherein the factors comprise at least one factor selected from the group consisting of: a location of the meeting, a time of day of the meeting, attendees invited to the meeting, a topic of the meeting, a number of attendees invited to the meeting, a location of attendees invited to the meeting, and historical patterns of attendee appearance type for meetings having a similarity to the meeting (Paragraph Number [0066] teaches when generating various scores, metrics, or other evaluations of the network devices within a network 200, the sustainability attributes can vary based on a variety of factors such as the time of day, current network traffic, expected network traffic, and historical usage patterns. Paragraph Number [0096] teaches the process 800 can check historical data from past virtual meetings (block 830). This step can involve reviewing data from past virtual meetings, such as energy usage, attendance rates, participation rates, settings, location, and/or feedback. In this way, accessing and utilizing historical data can help identify more optimal virtual meeting options and potential sustainability practices that can be incorporated into the current virtual meeting. Paragraph Number [0097] teaches attendance records may also be analyzed in some embodiments, which may include data regarding the number of participants who attended past virtual meetings, as well as their geographical location and time zone. In some embodiments, meeting duration metrics may be reviewed, which can include data regarding the length of past virtual meetings, including the start and end times. The historical data may also include information or data regarding the types of technology used during past virtual meetings, such as the video conferencing platform, file-sharing tools, and other collaboration software. (See also Paragraph Number [0039] in regard to accessing a datacenter that provides meeting statistics and information that relate to appearance of users)).
As per claim 12, Gatzke teaches each of the limitations of claim 11.
In addition, Gatzke teaches:
wherein the determining the attendee appearance type comprises providing the factors of the meeting as input to a recommendation engine and wherein the output from the recommendation engine is the attendee appearance type. (Paragraph Number [0018] teaches providing the one or more virtual meeting options includes displaying one or more suggested virtual meeting times and configurations based on the determined sustainability threshold. Paragraph Number [0089] teaches gathering virtual meeting settings can involve selecting the appropriate software, hardware, and other technology required to set up and run the virtual meeting (block 720). As discussed above with reference to FIG. 6, this gathering may include selecting a video conferencing platform, setting up microphones and speakers, and ensuring that all participants have access to the necessary technology. Other settings that may need to be considered include the layout of the virtual meeting, the types of presentations or materials that will be shared, and the level of interactivity required, camera settings, participant device settings, virtual meeting type, etc. Paragraph Number [0094] teaches a flowchart depicting a process 800 for providing virtual meeting options with a plurality of indications in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosure is shown. In many embodiments, the process 800 can determine a virtual meeting type (block 810). As described above, the meeting type may be configured as a one-to-one, many-to-one, or a many-to-many type meeting. Other considerations may include identifying the purpose and format of the virtual meeting, such as whether it is a conference call, video conference, or webinar. It is envisioned that the virtual meeting type could be used to determine one or more virtual meeting options and sustainability metrics that will be used to generate the options).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 6/2/2026, pgs. 9-12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the 35 USC 101 analysis presented above, the claims recite an abstract concept that is encapsulated by decision making analogous to a method of organizing human activity. Examiner notes that each of the limitations that encapsulate the abstract concepts are recited in the above 35 USC 101. Additionally, the claims do not recite a practical application of the abstract concepts in that there is no specific use or application of the method steps other than to make conclusory determinations and provide for direction for either a person or machine to follow at some future time (including monitoring information associated with agent/customer interactions). The claims do not recite any particular use for these determinations and directions that improve upon the underlying computer technology (in this instance the computer software, processor, and memory). Instead, Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claim language are only used as implementation of the abstract concepts utilizing technology. The concepts described in the limitations when taken both as a whole and individually are not meaningfully different than those found by the courts to be abstract ideas and are similarly considered to be certain methods of organizing human activity such as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. The steps are then encapsulated into a particular technological environment by executing these steps upon a computer processor and utilizing features such as a computer interface or sending and receiving data over a network or displaying information via a computerized graphical user interface. However, sending and receiving of information over a network and execution of algorithms (including monitoring information associated with meetings) on a computer are utilized only to facilitate the abstract concepts (i.e. selecting data on an interface, publishing/displaying information, etc.). As such, Examiner asserts that the implementation of the abstract concepts recited by the claims utilize computer technology in a way that is considered to be generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, Examiner does not find that the claims recite a practical application of the abstract concepts recited by the claims.
Applicant argues that the previously cited reference does not teach the newly amended portions including the new limitations recited by the independent claims. (See Applicant’s Remarks, 6/2/2026, pgs. 12-15). In particular, Applicant argues that the Gatzke reference does not teach “determining, using the meeting type identification system and based upon factors of the meeting, an attendee appearance type for the user, the attendee appearance type identifying how the user should access and engage within the meeting,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The following citations from Gatzke are applicable:
Paragraph Number [0082] teaches a flowchart depicting a process 600 for establishing a sustainable virtual meeting in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosure is shown. As shown, in various embodiments, virtual meeting settings may be gathered, which may include, by way of non-limiting example, one or more settings of the virtual meeting such as the number of participants, the camera settings of those participants (camera on or off; high-definition versus standard-definition, etc.), the purpose of the meeting, the configuration of the meeting (one-to-many, many-to-many, etc.), the location, room, and/or the time and date of the meeting (block 610). These settings may be utilized to determine the virtual meeting platform and one or more features to be used. Paragraph Number [0094] teaches a flowchart depicting a process 800 for providing virtual meeting options with a plurality of indications in accordance with various embodiments of the disclosure is shown. In many embodiments, the process 800 can determine a virtual meeting type (block 810). As described above, the meeting type may be configured as a one-to-one, many-to-one, or a many-to-many type meeting. Other considerations may include identifying the purpose and format of the virtual meeting, such as whether it is a conference call, video conference, or webinar. It is envisioned that the virtual meeting type could be used to determine one or more virtual meeting options and sustainability metrics that will be used to generate the options. Paragraph Number [0095] teaches the process 800 may receive participant data (block 820). Participant data can vary but may include, for example, location, language, time zone, audio/visual settings, and/or accessibility needs. The participant data may be an important component in determining the virtual meeting options that can be generated, as it may help identify the technology and language requirements, as well as any accessibility needs.
Examiner asserts that the above emphasized section teach providing for recommendation (determining meeting options that can be generated) depending on the type of meeting being held. Further, this determination can include determining how the person may appear in a meeting (one-to-one, many-to-one, or many-to-many type meeting). As such, Examiner asserts that the Gatzke reference teaches “determining, using the meeting type identification system and based upon factors of the meeting, an attendee appearance type for the user, the attendee appearance type identifying how the user should access and engage within the meeting.” Further, Examiner asserts that each and every element of the independent claims is taught by portions of the Gatzke reference. As such, Examiner maintains the 35 USC 102 rejection. Examiner is not persuaded by the distinctions Applicant is attempting to make.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H. DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0166. The fax phone number is 571-483-7110. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7:00 - 5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.H.D/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights