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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are amended and hereby entered. Claims 3, 5, and 13 are canceled. No claims are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 are fully considered but they are not persuasive
Regarding 35 USC 101:
The applicant submits the claims do not recite an abstract idea because a human mind cannot practically perform the process described by the claims. Specifically, the applicant submits the claims require a periodic runtime algorithm that repeatedly recomputes allocated time for remaining slides to change metadata and operate dynamically, which the human mind cannot practically perform. However, the claims broadly recite performing periodic time checks and making determinations that can be performed by the human mind. Further, varying memory capacity does not negate the mental nature of a limitation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B) and (C). Therefore, the examiner respectfully disagrees and the rejection is maintained.
Further, the applicant submits the claims integrate the judicial exception into practical application analogous to USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 37. However, analysis of claims must be based on the MPEP, not parallels from the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. Specifically, the applicant submits the practical application is in the improving the operation of presentation software through automatic runtime reconfiguration of the meta data and presentation execution. However, this again falls into the abstract idea of mental processes. The computer performs the analysis and presents the results of analysis by showing appropriate slides based on the ingested and analyzed data.
Additionally, the applicant also submits the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas, relying on MPEP section 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(d). However, much of the applicant labeled “additional elements” are not additional elements; rather they are part of the abstract idea of mental processes involving collecting, analyzing, and displaying results. The only additional elements are the general-purpose computing components. Therefore, the analysis falls under 2106.05(f) where a computer is used to perform the abstract idea (i.e. the computer is used as a tool to perform what a person would otherwise perform when presenting). The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding 35 USC 102/103:
The applicant submits the newly amended claim features overcome the cited prior art because the prior art does not teach slide selection indicators. However, the claims broadly recite determining if a slide is mandatory based on user-defined priorities comprising selection indicators associated with slides. Prior art Bhatia teaches that a presenter can specify (i.e. indicate) required slides through dependencies that are stored in the presentation program, see Bhatia paragraph 34. This meets the positively recited determination step based on an indicator. Therefore, the specific method recited by Bhatia meets the broad limitations of the instant application. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant, and the rejection is maintained.
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 judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to a mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The independent claims recite a method and systems to change the remainder of an overrun presentation based on user defined priorities. These claim elements are being interpreted as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Changing which slides are used in a presentation based on mandatory requirements or the amount of time left in the presentation can be done by the human mind. For example, a human can skip certain slides when the presentation time exceeds a certain threshold at a specific point in the presentation. The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Further, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to a mathematical concept (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). The independent claims recite a method and systems to perform a summation of remaining slides times in a presentation. These claim elements are being interpreted as mathematical relationships and calculations (including mathematical operation). The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mathematical concepts” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the instant application merely recites an “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exceptions, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed towards implementing the identified abstract ideas in a general computer environment. The additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea itself include the elements such as “non-transitory computer readable storage media”, “computer system” and “a processor set” recited at a high level of generality. These claim elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general computer environment. The machines merely act as a modality to implement the abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application or significantly more (i.e., the additional elements are simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the dependent claims
Claim 7 introduces the new additional element “an artificial intelligence model”. However, simply using an artificial intelligence (AI) model to suggest user-defined priorities is not indicative of integration into a practical application or significantly more. The AI model is described at such a high level of generality it merely acts as a modality to implement the abstract idea (i.e., the additional element is simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 18-20 recite further embellishments of the existing abstract ideas and introduce no new additional elements for consideration under 35 USC 101
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bhatia (US 20140010520 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 17, (substantially similar in scope and language), Bhatia teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising: determining a time allocated to remaining material in a digital presentation that is in progress exceeds a remaining presentation time for the digital presentation; [(Para 0022) “Timer module 112 can compare these elapsed times to specified target times for each slide and the total target presentation time and provide an indication to the presenter and/or audience of any discrepancies (e.g., running over or under the target times)”]
wherein the determining comprises performing a periodic time check to compute the time allocated to the remaining material as a sum of respective time allocations embedded as metadata; [see at least Bhatia: (Para 0022) “Timer module 112 operates to monitor the elapsed presentation times for each slide and the elapsed presentation time for the entire presentation, both of which can be displayed to the presenter and/or audience. Timer module 112 can compare these elapsed times to specified target times for each slide and the total target presentation time and provide an indication to the presenter and/or audience of any discrepancies (e.g., running over or under the target times). Also, timer module 112 can initiate the reduction of specified slide presentation times, hiding of slides, and reintroduction of hidden slides into the slide presentation such that the total target presentation time can be met.”]
determining, based on user-defined priorities comprising slide selection indicators associated with a respective slide of the digital presentation, whether the respective slide of the digital presentation is mandatory; and [see at least Bhatia: (Para 0034) “For example, the presenter can specify that the slide should precede or be preceded by one or more other slides (i.e., order-based dependency), or that the inclusion of the slide in a slide deck requires the inclusion of one or more other slides in the slide deck”]
based on the determining that time allocated to the remaining material exceeds the remaining presentation time and the determining whether the respective slide of the digital presentation is mandatory, automatically changing metadata associated with a portion of the remaining material, wherein the changing the metadata comprises changing a display tag associated with the respective slide of the digital presentation, wherein the changing the metadata causes the portion of the remaining material to automatically be skipped during the digital presentation, [see at least Bhatia: (Para 0022) “Also, timer module 112 can initiate the reduction of specified slide presentation times, hiding of slides, and reintroduction of hidden slides into the slide presentation such that the total target presentation time can be met”, (Para 0016) “When presenting the slide presentation, the elapsed presentation times for each slide and the overall presentation are monitored and displayed, including indications of how the elapsed times compare to specified target times to enable the user and others to discern whether the presentation is on schedule, or is running ahead of or behind schedule. Based on the elapsed times and the information associated with each of the slides included in the slide deck, if necessary, the remaining portion of the slide deck that has not yet been presented can be automatically adjusted pursuant to specified criteria to fit the specified total target time for the presentation”, (Para 0021) “Slide hiding module 108 operates to reduce specified target presentation times for slides and/or hide slides such that a total target presentation time can be met. Hiding a slide, as discussed in greater detail later in this specification, involves marking the slide with a "hide" designation such that it is not displayed during the slide presentation. Hidden slides remain in the slide deck and are viewable by the presenter, allowing for the possibility that the hidden slides can later be reintroduced into the slide presentation (i.e., presented during the slide presentation) by having their respective "hide" designations removed”, (Para 0034) “For example, the presenter can specify that the slide should precede or be preceded by one or more other slides (i.e., order-based dependency), or that the inclusion of the slide in a slide deck requires the inclusion of one or more other slides in the slide deck (i.e., group-based dependency). Order-based dependency can be useful, for example, if the presenter wishes for the slide to serve as an introduction to a slide immediately following it. Group-based dependency can be useful, for example, if the slide may not make sense to an audience without the context that one or more other slides afford”]
and causes a time allocation associated with the portion to be excluded from subsequent periodic time checks that compute the time allocated to the remaining material [see at least Bhatia: (Para 0022) “Also, timer module 112 can initiate the reduction of specified slide presentation times, hiding of slides, and reintroduction of hidden slides into the slide presentation such that the total target presentation time can be met”, (Para 0041) “ Specified slide hiding criteria is utilized to specify how slide hiding module 108 should reduce slide times and/or hide slides in the slide deck, if necessary, to ensure that a total target presentation time is met”, (Para 0045) “In step 314, slide presentation program 104 calculates an estimated total presentation time (ETPT). In this exemplary embodiment, slide presentation program 104 calculates the ETPT by summing the specified ideal presentation times for each slide in the slide deck that is not marked with a "hide" designation. At step 314 of this embodiment, no slides are marked with a "hide" designation.”]
Regarding Claims 2, 12, and 18, Bhatia further teaches:
wherein: the digital presentation comprises slides; and the user-defined priorities further comprise respective priority ranks associated with respective ones of the slides. [(Para 0032) “Priority information may be, for example, in numerical form or textual form. In one embodiment, the presenter can specify and input a priority value for the slide as a number within a finite range, such as 1 through 5. In another embodiment, the presenter can specify and input a priority value for the slide as "high," "medium," or "low". Priority information can also include a weighted priority value.”]
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Bhatia further teaches:
wherein the remaining material comprises a subset of the slides that have not yet been displayed during the digital presentation. [(Para 0016) “the remaining portion of the slide deck that has not yet been presented can be automatically adjusted pursuant to specified criteria to fit the specified total target time for the presentation”]
Regarding Claim 6, Bhatia further teaches:
wherein the user-defined priorities are defined by user input and saved in a presentation document prior to the digital presentation being in progress. [(Para 0015) “A user can create slides and associate each slide with information such as target presentation times (i.e., durations of time) for the slide, subject matter tags, audience tags, and priority information. After creating the slides, the user can create a slide deck (i.e., an arrangement of slides) for a particular presentation.”]
Regarding Claim 8, Bhatia further teaches:
wherein the changing the metadata is performed while the digital presentation is being presented [(Para 0016) “When presenting the slide presentation, the elapsed presentation times for each slide and the overall presentation are monitored and displayed, including indications of how the elapsed times compare to specified target times to enable the user and others to discern whether the presentation is on schedule, or is running ahead of or behind schedule. Based on the elapsed times and the information associated with each of the slides included in the slide deck, if necessary, the remaining portion of the slide deck that has not yet been presented can be automatically adjusted pursuant to specified criteria to fit the specified total target time for the presentation.”] in a web conference. [The presentation being given in a web conference describes intended use and does not carry patentable weight in the claims]
Regarding Claim 9 and 19, Bhatia further teaches:
further comprising displaying an indicator to a presenter that is presenting the digital presentation while the digital presentation is in progress, wherein the indicator includes information that is based on the changing the metadata. [(Para 0057) “A hidden slide remains viewable to the presenter, but will not be presented to the audience unless subsequently reintroduced. For example, hidden slides in the slide deck can be displayed to the presenter as being grayed-out, or with a strike-through.”]
Regarding Claim 10, 16, and 20, Bhatia further teaches:
wherein the time allocated to remaining material and the remaining presentation time are determined at a first time while the digital presentation is in progress, and further comprising: determining, at a second time while the digital presentation is in progress, a second time allocated to remaining material in the digital presentation is less than a second remaining presentation time for the digital presentation; [(Para 0022) “Timer module 112 operates to monitor the elapsed presentation times for each slide and the elapsed presentation time for the entire presentation, both of which can be displayed to the presenter and/or audience. Timer module 112 can compare these elapsed times to specified target times for each slide and the total target presentation time and provide an indication to the presenter and/or audience of any discrepancies (e.g., running over or under the target times)”]
and based on the determining the second time allocated to remaining material is less than the second remaining presentation time, automatically changing second metadata associated with a second portion of the digital presentation, wherein the changing the second metadata causes the second portion of the digital presentation to not be skipped during the digital presentation. [(Para 0022) “Also, timer module 112 can initiate the reduction of specified slide presentation times, hiding of slides, and reintroduction of hidden slides into the slide presentation such that the total target presentation time can be met.”]
Regarding Claim 15, Bhatia further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise displaying an indicator to a presenter that is presenting the digital presentation while the digital presentation is in progress, wherein the indicator includes information that is based on the changing the metadata. [(Para 0057) “A hidden slide remains viewable to the presenter, but will not be presented to the audience unless subsequently reintroduced. For example, hidden slides in the slide deck can be displayed to the presenter as being grayed-out, or with a strike-through.”]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhatia (US 20140010520 A1) in view of Shahinian (US 20240126981 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Bhatia teaches the limitations of claim 1. Bhatia does not teach but Shahinian does teach:
wherein the user-defined priorities are suggested by an artificial intelligence model and saved in a presentation document prior to the digital presentation being in progress. [(Para 0013) “Each slide in the suggested slides for inclusion in an auto-generated presentation deck is contextual to the user's actions and relation/similarity context… Additional logic incorporates user input along with an ensemble of deep learning models to determine the best order of slides in the new presentation deck”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of changing the presentation of slides (Bhatia) with the method of using a machine learning model to aid presentations (Shahinian). Not only are both references both in the same field of presentation management, but one of ordinary skill would have recognized that using an artificial intelligence in presentation organization would aid in making decisions on prioritizing slides. Applying a known technique to a method ready for improvement would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Pertinent art not relied upon:
Basson (US 20160124909 A1) Computerized tool for creating variable length presentations. Basson discusses adjusting sequences of slides based on designated priorities and time durations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Truong, whose telephone number is 703-756-5883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (EST)
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, Nathan Uber SPE can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
/B.L.T./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights