DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed 24 June 2026.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, 16-19 have been amended.
Claim 20 has been cancelled.
Claim 21 has been added.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 24 June 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent No. 12,277,609 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial note, the arguments are not compliant under 37 CFR 1.111(b) as they amount to a mere allegation of patent eligibility based upon a bare assertion of improvement. The Examiner respectfully does not find the assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, the Examiner does not find any evidence that the claimed aspects are any improvement over conventional systems. This argument appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency results in an improvement; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)).
The Examiner notes that in order to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims must be directed towards a patent eligible concept, which, the instant claims are not directed. Contrary to Applicants’ assertion that the claims are not a certain method of organizing human activity, the Examiner notes that grouping similar users together for topics of discussions based upon said similarity is a function that all different kinds of conferences, social organizations, schools, clubs, etc. have traditionally performed/provided for users. Next, the claims are not directed to a practical application of the concept. The claims do not result in improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. They do not effect a particular treatment for a disease. They are not applied with or by a particular machine. They do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. And they are not applied in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception (i.e., determining a match between users and topics for discussion based upon tags and a networking pool) to a particular technological environment (i.e., virtually or with the use of generic computers or computer components). Here, again as noted in the previous rejection, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept - MPEP 2016.05(f). The claims recitation of the “virtual event” “event hosting system” and “graphical user interface” only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, the arguments not persuasive and the rejection not overcome.
Applicants argue that the claims contain an inventive concept and that the claims are not preemptive. Examiner respectfully disagrees and in particular, the updated Interim Guidelines provides the framework for determining whether or not claims are statutory. The Examiner points to the July 2015 Guidance that the courts do not use preemption as a stand-alone test, but instead, questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo and are resolved by using this framework (i.e. not being preemptive does not make the claims any less abstract). Merely alleging that the claimed invention relates to one specific application of an idea and does not preempt all uses of the idea does not guarantee that the invention is patent-eligible (See MPEP 2106.04). Instead, one must demonstrate that limitations recited in addition to the abstract idea amount to something significantly more in order to prove that the claimed invention poses no disproportionate risk of preemption. As previously discussed, the claims do not include additional elements that qualify as significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The Examiner further notes that a narrowly recited abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The claims need to contain a limitation that is significantly more than the abstract idea of “organizing human activities” involving matching users and discussion topics. Hence, the §101 rejection was not withdrawn.
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the prior art have been fully considered and addressed in the updated rejection below, as necessitated by amendments.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
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 1-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). The claims recite an apparatus, method (process) and system with apparatuses however, the claim(s) recite(s) determining a match between users based upon tags and a networking pool which is an abstract idea of organizing human activities.
The limitations of “adding a first event attendee to a networking pool in response to a device of the first event attendee accessing a networking interface associated with the virtual event ; matching a second set of tags associated with the second event attendee and the first event attendee to a group comprising third and fourth event attendees in the networking pool to obtain a second match based in part on a threshold number of tags from a second subset of the first set of tags associated with the first event attendee matching a third set of tags associated with the group, wherein the first event attendee does not have meetings established with the second, third, or fourth event attendees.... generating.... a dynamically defined first discussion topic for a first networking event of the plurality of dynamically generated networking events based on the threshold number of tags from the first subset matching the second set of tags; generating...a dynamically defined second discussion topic for a second networking event of the plurality of dynamically generated networking events based on the threshold number of tags from the second subset matching the third set of tags, wherein the dynamically defined second discussion topic is different than the dynamically defined first discussion topic” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activities--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) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “when executed by a processor...by the event hosting system,” (or “when executed by the processor, performs a method for matchmaking for the virtual event..., by the event hosting system” in claim 19) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the “by the event hosting system,” (or “when executed by the processor, performs a method for matchmaking for the virtual event..., by the event hosting system” in claim 19) language, “matching” and “wherein the discussion topic is generated” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually matching people based upon their interests and topics which is managing personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as one of the methods of organizing human activities but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). The “generating a custom graphical user interface (GUI) for the first event attendee with a plurality of dynamically generated networking events based on the first match and the second match, wherein generating the custom GUI comprises...” “presenting the custom GUI with different graphical elements for accessing each of the plurality of dynamically generated network events; ” and “dynamically modifying the GUI to...” are simply insignificant post solution output. Next, the claims only recite one additional element – using a processor of an event hosting system to perform the steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recitation of the “virtual event” “event hosting system” and “graphical user interface” is/are only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using a processor of an event hosting system to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in step 2B, the “generating a custom graphical user interface (GUI) for the first event attendee with a plurality of dynamically generated networking events based on the first match and the second match, wherein generating the custom GUI comprises...” “presenting the custom GUI with different graphical elements for accessing each of the plurality of dynamically generated network events; ” and “dynamically modifying the GUI to..” in the step(s) which are insignificant post solution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2-7, 11-16, and 21 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further including additional steps which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified (interests, obtain/monitor behavior of users, rules for matching) and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further including additional processing steps (natural language processing, generation of a transcript) for the attendees interactions which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (US PG Pub. 2021/0076002) further in view of Govindaraman (US PG Pub. 2014/0081882).
As per claims 1, 10, and 19, Peters discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of an event hosting system, perform a method for matchmaking for a virtual event, a method and an event hosting system for matchmaking for a virtual event, the event hosting system comprising: a processor; a memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, performs a method for matchmaking for the virtual event, the method comprising (memory, processor, computer code, network devices, Peters ¶102-¶106; For example, the server system may be a server of a video conferencing platform (e.g., ZOOM, SKYPE, MICROSOFT TEAMS, GOOGLE HANGOUTS MEET, CISCO WEBEX, etc.), ¶168):
adding a first event attendee to a networking pool in response to a device of the first event attendee accessing a networking interface associated with the virtual event (video conferencing, live visual interaction, Peters ¶7-¶8);
generating a custom graphical user interface (GUI) for the first event attendee with a plurality of dynamically generated networking events based on the first match and the second match, wherein generating the custom GUI comprises (graphical user interface, Peters ¶400):
generating a first graphical element with a dynamically defined first discussion topic for a first networking event of the plurality of dynamically generated networking events based on the threshold number of tags from the first subset matching the second set of tags (topics, Peters ¶157; conversation management hints, ¶234; move to another topic, ¶274; notifying users of hot button topics, ¶320; changing topics, shifting discussion, ¶356); and
generating a second graphical element with a dynamically defined second discussion topic for a second networking event of the plurality of dynamically generated networking events based on the threshold number of tags from the second subset matching the third set of tags, wherein the dynamically defined second discussion topic is different than the dynamically defined first discussion topic (change topics, Peters ¶134; topics or tones to use and avoid, ¶310; for different sessions, different groups, ¶300; history, based upon groups, ¶314; analysis to tailor communication to needs of specific audiences, ¶327-¶328) (Examiner notes that a change in topic includes that the topics are different);
presenting the custom GUI with different graphical elements for accessing each of the plurality of dynamically generated network events (topics, Peters ¶157; conversation management hints, ¶234; move to another topic, ¶274; notifying users of hot button topics, ¶320; changing topics, shifting discussion, ¶356); and
dynamically modifying the GUI to initiate the first networking event in response to a selection of the first graphical element by presenting one or more of an audio feed and a video feed from a device of the second event attendee and the dynamically defined first discussion topic (video conferencing, live visual interaction, Peters ¶7-¶8; The moderator module 20 can also store and access mapping data 160 that indicates video conference management actions to be performed, either directly by the moderator module 20 or suggested for a user (e.g., a meeting organizer) to perform. For example, the mapping data 160 can indicate classifications and corresponding actions that the moderator module 20 can take to improve the video conference session when the corresponding classification is present. The actions may affect the current endpoint and the corresponding participant, ¶78; In some implementations, the system can change the amount of time allotted to speakers, or adjust the total meeting time (e.g., when to end the meeting or whether to extend the meeting) based on an algorithm to optimize a particular metric or as triggered by events or conditions detected during the communication session. For example, to allot speaking time to individuals, the system can assess the effects that speaking by an individual has on the engagement and emotion of other people. The system provides dynamic feedback, both showing how a person's actions (e.g., speech in a conference) affect others on the video conference, and showing the speaker how they are affecting others. For example, if one person speaks and engagement scores of others go up (or if positive emotion increases and/or negative emotion decreases), the system can extend the time allocated to that person. If a person speaks and engagement scores go down (or if positive emotion decreases and/or negative emotion increases), the system can decrease the speaking time allocation for that person. The system can also adjust the total meeting time. The system can assess the overall mood and collaboration scores of the participants to cut short meetings with low overall collaboration or to extend meetings that have high collaboration. As a result, the system can end some meetings early or extend others based on how engaged the participants are, ¶141; emotional or cognitive states of the participants, ¶274; For example, the server system may be a server of a video conferencing platform (e.g., ZOOM, SKYPE, MICROSOFT TEAMS, GOOGLE HANGOUTS MEET, CISCO WEBEX, etc.), ¶168).
While Peters discloses the ability to provide matches (Peters ¶131 and ¶268), Peters does not expressly disclose matching, by the event hosting system, the first event attendee to a second event attendee in the networking pool to obtain a first match based in part on a threshold number of tags from a first subset of a first set of tags associated with the first event attendee matching a second set of tags associated with the second event attendee and the first event attendee to a group comprising third and fourth event attendees in the networking pool to obtain a second match based in part on a threshold number of tags from a second subset of the first set of tags associated with the first event attendee matching a third set of tags associated with the group, wherein the first event attendee does not have meetings established with the second, third, or fourth event attendees.
However, Govindaraman teaches matching, by the event hosting system, the first event attendee to a second event attendee in the networking pool to obtain a first match based in part on a threshold number of tags from a first subset of a first set of tags associated with the first event attendee matching a second set of tags associated with the second event attendee and the first event attendee to a group comprising third and fourth event attendees in the networking pool to obtain a second match based in part on a threshold number of tags from a second subset of the first set of tags associated with the first event attendee matching a third set of tags associated with the group, wherein the first event attendee does not have meetings established with the second, third, or fourth event attendees (tags, Govindaraman ¶28; In one example, if `attendee 2` and `attendee 1` are in sales representative's social graph 105, then the sales representative can be automatically notified of the `links 2 and 1` according one implementation described later in this application. `Links 2 and 1` can be automatically stratified using the social graph tags created in social graph 105 of the sales representative. In another example, if `attendee 3` and `attendee 4` meet the sales representative's introduction preference attributes specified in the introduction preferences 102, then the `qualified matches 3 and 4` can be reported to the sales representative according another implementation described later in this application. Similarly, `matches 5-1000+` can be found among `attendees 5-1000+` based on sales representative's social graph 105 and introduction preferences 102, ¶30; While actions described in FIG. 6 apply to the entire mega attendance event 108, the following actions apply particularly to selected sessions of the mega attendance event 108. Actions 710 and 730 of FIG. 7 most strongly differ from respective actions 610 and 630 of FIG. 6 because actions 710 and 730 include receiving "session-based user registration" and "session-based attendee list" instead of event-based user registration and event-based attendee list described in FIG. 6. Using this implementation, attendees can find matches among a smaller pool of session attendees, as opposed to a much larger pool of all the attendees of the mega attendance event 108. For the forgoing reason, FIG. 7 does not include action 690 described in FIG. 6, which includes "reporting matched attendees that are proximate to the verified user," as session attendees are often already in close proximity to each other. In other implementations, action 690 can be included in the method described in FIG. 7, ¶94; Other filters can include attendees that are tagged in the social graph of user 401 such as industry types, geographic territories, job functions, skills, expertise, products, services, service providers, age, gender, professional circles, degrees of separation, interaction strengths, social proximities, and location proximities, ¶72; The social graph tags can identify group of users in an attendee's online social network that have similar characteristics or attributes. Examples of such social graph tags or groups can include, without limitations, industry types, geographic territories, job functions, skills, expertise, products, services, age, gender, professional circles, degrees of separation, interaction strengths, social proximities, and location proximities, ¶74; results of matches results of matches generated by the matching engine 222 across a user interface of a computing device at action 780. In some implementations, it can run analytics such as clustering, classification, and prioritization over the results generated by the matching engine 222. In some implementations, reporting engine 232 can stratify the results generated by the matching engine 222 into industry types preferred by the user, professional circles of the user, degrees of separation with the user, interaction strengths with the user, social proximities to the user, location proximities to the user, and the like, ¶103; attributes, interests, skills, used for matches, ¶113-¶114) (Examiner notes the ability to cluster users by attributes as the ability to have a threshold number of tags).
The Peters and Govindaraman references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with organizing events. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Govindaraman’s ability to match users in and from pools of users in Peters’ system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in an event management system that is able to organize meetings and events.
The motivation being that an opportunity arises to help event attendees connect with people of interest present at a mega attendance event by taking into account social graphs and introduction preferences of the event attendees. Improved user experience and engagement and higher user satisfaction and retention may result (Govindaraman ¶5).
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to repeat the processes in claims 1, 10, and 19 for second, third, or additional attendees or events because duplication is obvious, MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. The duplication of parts (or steps) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Examiner finds no evidence that performing the processes in claims 1, 10, and 19 for second, third, or additional attendees or events would produce new and unexpected results as compared to performing the processes in claims 1 10, and 19 for only a first attendee and first event.
As per claims 2 and 11, Peters and Govindaraman disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Peters further discloses wherein the first set of tags comprises at least one interest tag received from the first event attendee, and wherein the second set of tags comprises at least one interest tag received from the second event attendee (preferences, interest of user, Peters ¶310).
As per claims 3 and 12, Peters and Govindaraman disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Govindaraman further teaches wherein the method further comprises: determining the dynamically defined first discussion topic based in part on at least one shared interest between the first event attendee and the second event attendee that is identified from said matching of the first subset to the second set of tags (Social graph 105 can include online social networks of attendees on various social networking platforms like Chatter, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. In some implementations, social graph 105 can include records of other users in attendees' online social networks and further specify the relation and interaction types between the attendees and other users. In some implementations, social graph 105 can stratify, classify, categorize, and/or group other users in attendees' online social networks into "social graph tags" based on the preferences or interests of the attendees. The social graph tags can identify group of users in an attendee's online social network that have similar characteristics or attributes. Examples of such social graph tags or groups can include, without limitations, industry types, geographic territories, job functions, skills, expertise, products, services, age, gender, professional circles, degrees of separation, interaction strengths, social proximities, and location proximities, Govindaraman ¶28).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Govindaraman’s ability to match users in and from pools of users in Peters’ system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in an event management system that is able to organize meetings and events.
The motivation being that an opportunity arises to help event attendees connect with people of interest present at a mega attendance event by taking into account social graphs and introduction preferences of the event attendees. Improved user experience and engagement and higher user satisfaction and retention may result (Govindaraman ¶5).
As per claims 4 and 13, Peters and Govindaraman disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Govindaraman further teaches obtaining a first set of behavioral data for the first event attendee and a second set of behavioral data for the second event attendee, wherein the first set of behavioral data and the second set of behavioral data comprises at least one of: a visited area associated with the virtual event, a length of time spent at the visited area, or an event agenda, and wherein the first event attendee and the second event attendee are further matched based in part on the first set of behavioral data and the second set of behavioral data (attendee location data, Govindaraman ¶37-¶38; sessions attended, check-in, ¶83; proximity, ¶94; see also An attendee list 106 for the mega attendance event 108 is accessed via communication network(s) 107 at action 520 by attendees of the mega attendance event 108. Attendee list 106 can include information related to the attendees of the mega attendance event 108. In one implementation, attendee-related information can include background information of the attendees, pictures of the attendees, biographic information of the attendees such as industries in which the attendees work in, geographic territories within which the attendees are professionally active, job functions of the attendees, and service providers of the attendees, contact information of the attendees, digital business cards, information of products or services offered or consumed by the attendees, advertising materials, technical specifications, written work product of the attendees, etc. This information can be written textual information, video information, digital pictures, audio information or other types of information stored in digital form, ¶75).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Govindaraman’s ability to match users in and from pools of users in Peters’ system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in an event management system that is able to organize meetings and events.
The motivation being that an opportunity arises to help event attendees connect with people of interest present at a mega attendance event by taking into account social graphs and introduction preferences of the event attendees. Improved user experience and engagement and higher user satisfaction and retention may result (Govindaraman ¶5).
As per claims 5 and 14, Peters and Govindaraman disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Govindaraman further teaches wherein the method further comprises: adding the first event attendee and the second event attendee back to the networking pool upon ending the first networking event; and responsive to adding the first event attendee and the second event attendee back to the networking pool, matching the first event attendee to a third event attendee and the second event attendee to the fourth event attendee (While actions described in FIG. 6 apply to the entire mega attendance event 108, the following actions apply particularly to selected sessions of the mega attendance event 108. Actions 710 and 730 of FIG. 7 most strongly differ from respective actions 610 and 630 of FIG. 6 because actions 710 and 730 include receiving "session-based user registration" and "session-based attendee list" instead of event-based user registration and event-based attendee list described in FIG. 6. Using this implementation, attendees can find matches among a smaller pool of session attendees, as opposed to a much larger pool of all the attendees of the mega attendance event 108. For the forgoing reason, FIG. 7 does not include action 690 described in FIG. 6, which includes "reporting matched attendees that are proximate to the verified user," as session attendees are often already in close proximity to each other. In other implementations, action 690 can be included in the method described in FIG. 7, Govindaraman ¶94).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Govindaraman’s ability to match users in and from pools of users in Peters’ system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in an event management system that is able to organize meetings and events.
The motivation being that an opportunity arises to help event attendees connect with people of interest present at a mega attendance event by taking into account social graphs and introduction preferences of the event attendees. Improved user experience and engagement and higher user satisfaction and retention may result (Govindaraman ¶5).
As per claims 6 and 15, Peters and Govindaraman disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Peters further discloses wherein the method further comprises: receiving a rule for matching a plurality of event attendees, wherein the first event attendee and the second event attendee are further matched based in part on the rule (The system can maintain profiles that represent different complex emotions or mental states, where each profile indicates a corresponding combination of emotion scores and potentially a pattern in which the scores change are maintained over time. The system compares the series of emotion data (e.g., a time series of emotion score vectors, occurrence or sequence of micro-expressions detected, etc.) with the profiles to determine whether and to what degree each person matches the profile. The system can then provide output to the members of a video conference or other communication session based on the results. For example, a person in a video conference may be provided a user interface that includes indicators showing the emotional states or engagement (e.g., collaboration score, participation score, etc.) of one or more of the other participants, Peters ¶119).
As per claims 7 and 16, Peters and Govindaraman disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 10. Peters further discloses wherein the method further comprises: monitoring the first networking event between the first event attendee and the second event attendee; and modifying the custom GUI to present a new topic in response to monitoring the first networking event and determining that a conversation subject has changed from the first discussion topic to the new topic (time to take a break, Peters ¶132; The system can perform various actions based on the emotions and participant responses that it detects. For example, the system can prompt intervention in the meeting, prompt a speaker to change topics or change content, and so on, ¶134 and ¶274; determining intervention is needed, ¶137; end some meetings early, ¶141; keep current meeting short, ¶309).
As per claims 8 and 17, Peters and Govindaraman disclose as shown above with respect to claims 7 and 16. Peters further discloses wherein monitoring the first networking event comprises: performing a natural language processing of the audio feed; and detecting the new topic based on the natural language processing (In step 1804, as users participate in the virtual communication session, emotional intelligence and context data is compiled, filtered, and summarized for the user. Various types of data can be collected for a communication session, such as (1) a transcript of the conversation (entire or key-word summary), (2) facial expression data, emotional responses, cognitive attributes, etc., (3) voice stress analysis, and (4) speaking times for participants, as well as potentially biometric or physiological data (e.g., heart rate and blood pressure) gathered from Internet-of-Things (IOT) devices such as wearable devices. Data can be gathered for all participants in the communication session, not only to be able to determine an emotional map cookie for each participant but also to show how each individual reacts to the emotions and actions of the other participants. The processing of this data extracts key responses and events, filters out conditions that are not important, and summarizes the user's emotional and cognitive attributes and actions in the communication session, Peters ¶313) (Examiner interprets the processing of the participants of the communication sessions for a transcript as the ability to include natural language processing).
As per claims 9 and 18, Peters and Govindaraman disclose as shown above with respect to claims 7 and 16. Peters further discloses wherein monitoring the first networking event comprises: generating a transcript for at least a subset of the first networking event; extracting at least one keyword from the transcript; and determining the new topic based in part on the at least one keyword (In step 1804, as users participate in the virtual communication session, emotional intelligence and context data is compiled, filtered, and summarized for the user. Various types of data can be collected for a communication session, such as (1) a transcript of the conversation (entire or key-word summary), (2) facial expression data, emotional responses, cognitive attributes, etc., (3) voice stress analysis, and (4) speaking times for participants, as well as potentially biometric or physiological data (e.g., heart rate and blood pressure) gathered from Internet-of-Things (IOT) devices such as wearable devices. Data can be gathered for all participants in the communication session, not only to be able to determine an emotional map cookie for each participant but also to show how each individual reacts to the emotions and actions of the other participants. The processing of this data extracts key responses and events, filters out conditions that are not important, and summarizes the user's emotional and cognitive attributes and actions in the communication session, Peters ¶313).
As per claim 21, Peters and Govindaraman disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Peters further discloses wherein the method further comprises: changing a particular tag of the first set of tags based on the event hosting system monitoring interactions between the first event attendee and the second event attendee during the first networking event and the interactions differing from interest data associated with the particular tag (topics or tones to use and avoid, Peters ¶310; for different sessions, different groups, ¶300; history, based upon groups, ¶314; analysis to tailor communication to needs of specific audiences, ¶327-¶328).
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 ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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 for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-
automated- interview-request-air-form
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
