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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding applicants arguments directed at the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101 for being directed at the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed at access control to sub-meetings, Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
Examiner respectfully notes that allowing access to a sub-meeting is the abstract idea of organizing human activity. For example a student assigned to a class room, or splitting teams for a basketball game, or different rooms of a workshop.
Furthermore the claims do not discuss, in any form of specificity, the technical implementation of access control. What controls the access, which device performs verification, is it a platform online, where’s the database that holds the information, where are the commands going to and coming from, what type of communication protocol is used? No specificity is provided in the claims other than conventional well known steps, performing an abstract idea.
Rather, the claims seemed to be directed at swallowing all sub-meeting navigation through a list. The user can be authorized to access all the meetings. Furthermore a set is a subset of itself.
Therefore the examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims are directed at access control to sub-meetings.
Examiner respectfully withdraws the prior art rejections in light of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites using a display to list a group of meetings, receiving a selection, and displaying data.
The claim(s) recite(s):
Regarding
Claim 1 recites:
(1) joining a main meeting which under BRI is merely displaying information for organizing and facilitating human activity and therefore part of the abstract idea. Furthermore data gathering and display elements are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea to render the claimed invention patent eligible. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ("[T]he involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity"); see also MPEP § 2106.05(g); and see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ( computer receives and sends information over a network).
(2) “receiving, from a remote computing device, a list comprising a subset of a plurality of available sub-meetings of the video conference;” Examiner respectfully notes that listing information for a meeting is part of organizing and facilitating human activity, and therefore part of the abstract idea. Furthermore a set is a subset of itself and therefore it’s still part of the abstract idea. Furthermore receiving information, i.e., data gathering, which is merely insignificant extra solution activity that does not add significantly more to the abstract idea to render the claimed invention patent eligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); Revised Guidance 55, n.31; see In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ("[T]he involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity").
(2-a) “the subset comprising sub-meetings of the plurality of available sub-meetings that the client device is authorized to join” Examiner notes that (1) a set is a subset of itself (2) this is a definition and is not functional language. Therefore this part of abstract idea, because when organizing human activity, the list of available meetings is part of the organizing and therefore part of the abstract idea. It being applied to sub-meetings is considered to insignificant extra-solution activity. We are still displaying a list. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ("[T]he involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity"); see also MPEP § 2106.05(g); and see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ( computer receives and sends information over a network).
(3)“displaying the list of the available sub-meetings;” Examiner respectfully notes that displaying information for organizing and facilitating human activity is part of the abstract idea. Furthermore transmitting/receiving information for display and displaying the information is insignificant extra-solution activity. Revised Guidance 55, n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). Data gathering and display elements are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea to render the claimed invention patent eligible. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ("[T]he involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity"); see also MPEP § 2106.05(g); and see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ( computer receives and sends information over a network).
(4) “receiving a selection of a first sub-meeting of the available sub-meetings and transmitting a request to join the first sub-meeting;” Examiner respectfully notes receiving and transmitting information is for organizing and facilitating human activity and therefore part of the abstract idea. Furthermore, transmitting/receiving information for display and displaying the information is insignificant extra-solution activity. Revised Guidance 55, n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
(5) “and joining the first sub-meeting.” Examiner respectfully points out that joining is interpreted under BRI as displaying information for organizing and facilitating human activity and therefore part of the abstract idea. Furthermore, transmitting/receiving information for display and displaying the information is insignificant extra-solution activity. Revised Guidance 55, n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g). Data gathering and display elements are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that do not add significantly more to the abstract idea to render the claimed invention patent eligible. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) ("[T]he involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity"); see also MPEP § 2106.05(g); and see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ( computer receives and sends information over a network).
Regarding claim 2 recites a step of disconnecting from a main meeting, examiner respectfully interprets disconnecting as stopping display. Examiner again notes merely displaying or stopping of displaying of information is for the purpose of facilitating and organizing human activity and therefore part of the abstract idea. Displaying and ending display if considered as extrasolution activity (see above). Regarding claims 3-7, examiner respectfully points to claim 1 as they recite similar limitations and inherit the interpretation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
In its analysis, the Federal Circuit enquired whether "the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities of computing devices, or, instead, 'a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool."' Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Similarly here we have the same question, and in the examiners opinion the claims are not directed to a specific technical solution/improvement to a technical problem but a means of capturing an abstract idea.
The claims are silent to how any of the technical steps are performed, nor are the elements limited in scope. Therefore claims 1-20 are deemed to not provide a specific technical solution and improvement to facilitating videoconferencing but are deemed to cover any means for using selections to navigate different meetings. The claims lack to specify which device is performing which steps of the method claim. For example limitations one “joining a main meeting of a video conference.” Is a user watching considered “joining”. Is a device joining? Is there a specific technical mode of connection? The claims are so broad they would swallow all of video conferencing. In Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC (Fed. Cir 2018) The courts determined Claim 12 of the ‘259 patent to be patent eligible because it provided limitations directed at the specific technical solution and concluded that the invention therein was "directed to a specific method for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets" rather than an abstract idea. The courts further determined that a broad version of the claim, Claim 1 of the ‘551 patent was patent ineligible and was struck down under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the court determined the claim "generically recites associating each of the cell matrices with a user-settable page identifier and does not recite the specific implementation of a notebook tab interface." And further stated "not limited to the specific technical solution and improvement in electronic spreadsheet functionality that rendered representative claim 12 of the '259 patent eligible . . . [i]nstead, claim 1 . . . covers any means for identifying electronic spreadsheet pages.". For the same reasoning and rationale the examiner is of the opinion that the claim is directed at an abstract idea and not integrated into a practical application.
Furthermore the claims only recite one additional element – using a processor to perform all the steps and recited in a high generality, performing generic computer functionality, receiving selections, and based on the selection to display data.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not add specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field and simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 8-20, the claims inherit the same rejections as claims 1-7 above for reciting similar limitations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABDERRAHMEN H CHOUAT whose telephone number is (571)431-0695. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9AM to 5PM PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-8328. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
Abderrahmen Chouat
Examiner
Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
Prosecution Insights