DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 10, 17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12335058. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the omission of limitations is an obvious variation. The omission is performing the steps and/or functions automatically and parsing reviewed information.
Present application
US 12335058
1. A method comprising:
1. A method comprising:
for a positive action:
triggering an automated search for participant information for a participant when a positive action by the participant to attend an event is received from a client device associated with the participant;
triggering automated search for participant information for a participant when a-the positive action for an event is received from a client device associated with the participant;
gathering the participant information from public, private, and system resources in response to the triggering of the automated search;
automatically gathering the participant information from public, private, and system resources in response to the triggered automated search;
reviewing the gathered participant information from the automated search for issues;
automatically reviewing the gathered participant information from the automated search for inconsistencies and issues;
resolving consistency of the gathered participant information from the public, private, and system resources based on the review of the gathered participant information; and
automatically resolving consistency of the gathered participant information from the public, private, and system resources based on the automated review of the gathered participant information; and
transmitting the resolved participant information to client devices for display, the client devices associated with participants providing positive actions for the event.
automatically transmitting the resolved participant information to client devices for display, the client devices associated with participants providing positive actions for the event;
10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: processing a negative action for the participant;
and for a negative action:
processing the negative action for the participant;
parsing the negative action for replacement participants;
gathering replacement participant information on replacement participants from at least one of the public, private, or system resources;
gathering replacement participant information on replacement participants from the public, private, and system resources;
determining one or more replacement participants for the participant based on the negative action and the gathered replacement participant information on the replacement participants; and
determining one or more replacement participants for the participant based on the parsed negative action and the gathered replacement participant information on the replacement participants; and
transmitting the one or more replacement participants to a client device associated with an event organizer.
automatically transmitting the one or more replacement participants to a client device associated with an event organizer.
13. An apparatus, comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
13. An apparatus, comprising:
a memory; and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:
trigger an automated search for participant information for a participant when a positive action by the participant to attend an event is received from a client device associated with the participant;
for a positive action:
trigger an automated search for participant information for a participant when a the positive action for an event is received from a client device associated with the participant;
gather the participant information from public, private, and software platform resources in response to the triggering of the automated search;
automatically gather the participant information from public, private, and software platform resources in response to the triggered automated search;
review the gathered participant information from the automated search for issues;
automatically review the gathered participant information from the automated search for inconsistencies and issues;
resolve consistency of the gathered participant information from the public, private, and software resources based on the review of the gathered participant information; and
automatically resolve consistency of the gathered participant information from the public, private, and apparatus resources based on the automated review of the gathered participant information; and
transmit the resolved participant information to client devices for display, the client devices associated with participants providing positive actions for the event.
automatically transmit the resolved participant information to client devices for display, the client devices associated with participants providing positive actions for the event; and
17. The apparatus of claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: process a negative action for the participant;
for a negative action:
process a negative action for the participant;
parsing the negative action for replacement participants;
gather replacement participant information on replacement participants from at least one of public, private, or apparatus resources;
gather replacement participant information on replacement participants from the public, private, and software platform resources;
determine one or more replacement participants for the participant based on the negative action and the gathered replacement participant information on the replacement participants; and
determine one or more replacement participants for the participant based on the parsed negative action and the gathered replacement participant information on the replacement participants; and
transmit the one or more replacement participants to an event organizer.
automatically transmit the one or more replacement participants to an event organizer.
18. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
18. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
triggering an automated search for participant information for a participant when a positive action by the participant to attend an event is received from a client device associated with the participant;
for a positive action:
triggering an automated search for participant information for a participant when a positive action for an event is received from a client device associated with the participant;
gathering the participant information from public, private, and software platform resources in response to the triggering of the automated search;
automatically gathering the participant information from public, private, and software platform resources in response to the triggered automated search;
reviewing the gathered participant information from the automated search for issues; and
automatically reviewing the gathered participant information from the automated search for inconsistencies and issues;
resolving consistency of the gathered participant information from the public, private, and software platform resources based on the review of the gathered participant information.
automatically resolving consistency of the gathered participant information from the public, private, and software platform resources based on the automated review of the gathered participant information; and
automatically transmitting the resolved participant information to client devices for display, the client devices associated with participants providing positive actions for the event; and
19. The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 18, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to perform operations comprising:
processing a negative action for the participant;
for a negative action:
processing the negative action for the participant;
gathering replacement participant information on replacement participants from at least one of public, private, or system resources;
parsing the negative action for replacement participants;
gathering replacement participant information on replacement participants from the public, private, and software platform resources;
determining one or more replacement participants for the participant based on the negative action and the gathered replacement participant information on the replacement participants; and
determining one or more replacement participants for the participant based on the parsed negative action and the gathered replacement participant information on the replacement participants; and
transmitting the one or more replacement participants to an event organizer.
automatically transmitting an invitation to the one or more replacement participants.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1-2, 6-7, 11, 13-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polish et al., US 20220014571 A1 (hereafter referred to as Polish) in view of Vendrow et al., US 20130218902 A1 (hereafter referred to as Vendrow).
CONTEXT: Polish teaches in mechanism for reconciling information and resolving conflicting information, (p. 104, “The meeting/connect/teams-record-creation engine 226 comprises one or more instructions for performing functions to create records for a meeting, participant, organization etc. The RSVP-aggregator engine 228 comprises one or more instructions for performing functions to aggregate responses from the participants, which is a precursor to executing a meeting or event.)
(p. 104, “The info-reconciler engine 230 comprises one or more instructions for performing functions to reconcile and resolve conflicting information, for example participant identity credentials in instances when multiple participants provide the same information.” Polish also teaches p. 118, “FIG. 5 illustrates the following processes: user wants to meet/connect (block 510), create meet/connect/teams invite (515), send meet/connect/teams invite (520), create system meet/connect/teams record (535), system reconciliation (and/or resolution with inference) process (540), capture RSVPs (545), system reconciliation (and/or resolution with inference) process (550) with updating user system profiles (and credentials) (553), update system meet/connect/teams record (555)…”)
(p. 121, “In some instances, the system 100 identifies participants if known or recognized by comparing identity credentials with those of record and if unknown or unrecognized adds them as provisional participants for subsequent confirmation. Upon later confirmation, the unrecognized participants are added to the records in storage with their current identity credentials. Identity credentials or participant profiles are reconciled or resolved to eliminate duplicate use of identities and to ensure that each participant has a unique identity and presence. Multiple participant presence instances are resolved to combine and identity by a single identity or profile.”).
A. Claim 13, Polish teaches an apparatus (integrated platform 100, p. 102), comprising:
a memory (“memory”); and a processor (“processor”) configured to execute instructions stored in the memory (p. 104, “The pre-meet/connect module 222 further comprises an invitation engine 224, meeting/connect/teams-record-creation engine 226, RSVP-aggregator engine 228, and info-reconciler engine 230. Each of these engines are configured as software modules to execute the programmed functionalities.” And p. 104, “The hardware unit 210 comprises the processor 212, memory 214, communications unit 216, and I/O interface 218. The processor 21 executes the instructions stored in memory to drive each of the modules.”) to:
trigger an automated search for participant information for a participant when a positive action for an event is received by the participant to attend an event is received from a client device associated with the participant (p. 118, “FIG. 5 illustrates capture RSVPs (545), system reconciliation (and/or resolution with inference) process (550) with updating user system profiles (and credentials) (553), …” Triggering redo based on receiving participant RSVPs. And p. 102, “The search engine 138 comprises one or more instructions for performing functions that may be used to search for data on participants or meetings by applying filters or as needed.” See also p. 103, “The participant/teams tracking engine 168 comprises one or more instructions for performing functions that track the particular participants in a team. This data is useful for compiling and recommending teams for future meetings or events by project, skill, organization or the like.”);
gather the participant information from a public, private, and software platform resources (p. 117, “the system and method advantageously creates a user data packet for cross platform access and use. Each user data packet is configured for each individual user, which may be a person, a group, or an entity such as a company or enterprise.” And p. 192, “b. Whether the Invitees (based on the email addresses) are already in the System and have a System Profile.” And p. 191-196, “i. If they do, then their System Profile is updated for the Meeting. ii. If not, then System attempts to match it with an existing System Profile that uses another email address. 1. If not matched, then a new System Profile is created .” See also p. 117, “At the start for a first-time presence, the user data packet is created and starts to evolve dynamically with additional data acquired with each instance of presence in or invitation to an event, such as a meeting. These operations are designed at block 410. Input data is acquired from various sources, either comprehensively, or with some filters in place. Input feeds may be automatically received and the user data packet updated or input feeds may be designated at any point or designated times etc. These operations are collectively indicated by block 412.”);
review the gathered participant information for issues (p. 173, “3. Immediately (or as soon as possible but before the meeting), System runs or executes the System and method referred to here as the “Reconciliation Process” (see Section M below for fuller description).” And 2. If matched, then an update is executed to the associated System Profile” And p. 366-367, “System Reconciliation Process The System Reconciliation Process (the “SRP”) is focused on scrubbing the data to ensure its accuracy. A primary focus is on figuring out the “identity” of the System User and building an accurate profile for users that takes into account multiple data sources (i.e., builds from a variety of inputs).”);
resolve consistency of the gathered participant information from public, private, and software platform resources based on the automated review of the gathered participant information (p. 104, “The info-reconciler engine 230 comprises one or more instructions for performing functions to reconcile and resolve conflicting information, for example participant identity credentials in instances when multiple participants provide the same information.” And p. 366-367, “System Reconciliation Process The System Reconciliation Process (the “SRP”) is focused on scrubbing the data to ensure its accuracy. A primary focus is on figuring out the “identity” of the System User and building an accurate profile for users that takes into account multiple data sources (i.e., builds from a variety of inputs). This process also builds an accurate profile for the meeting itself and/or a series of recurring meetings.” “SRP employs machine learning to help it “scrub” the data. For example, data that are close mis-spellings of each other are identified. Addresses that are slight variations of each are identified.”); and
transmit the resolved participant information to client devices for display, the client devices associated with participants providing positive actions for the event (p. 200, “In this case, all Invitees will receive the updated Meeting Invite and System will capture those updates and update the associated System-Meeting Record for that Meeting. System will learn this information in its role as an Invitee to the Meeting. “ And p. 546-547, 554-555, “Users can:” “Display the overall Finder in different ways…” “View any user's profile” “The profile view from the Finder is different than the user's view of their own profile.“). Polish does not specifically recite a positive response as in the response it positive. However, Polish teaches RSVPs which includes a positive response (p. 21, “In many instances, people invited to meetings often don't RSVP. With respect to scheduling meetings, many people who are invited to meetings RSVP promptly, many do not.” Choices are “Yes”, “No” and “Maybe”. And p. 202-204, “The System Calendar is automatically updated with any New Invitee. System will follow the same process for each New Invitee as it did for the original ones. RSVPs. The System Calendar is updated automatically for each RSVP—yes, no, maybe. System will collect the RSVP information from the System Calendar and update the appropriate System-Meeting Record. “). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to trigger updates to the system profile record which includes participant information based on positive action associated with the event because Polish teaches reviewing based on RSVPs received prior to the meeting. The motivation would have been a positive action is one of the possible actions in Polish and selecting a positive action would have been an equivalent substitution.
Polish does not specifically teach distinctly public, private, and software platform resources. However, in the same field of endeavor, Vendrow teaches public, private, and software platform resources (p. 30, “Global databases 130 may comprise any contact information 110B that may be associated with an entity. For example, one of global databases 130 may contain caller identifiers (Ids) and associated phone numbers 132. In other examples, global databases 130 may include on-line white pages and/or on-line yellow pages, business directories, university directories, email directories, domain name directories, address books for different entities, website directories, or the like, or any combination thereof.” “Third party sources 134 may comprise social networks, websites, blogs, or any other source of contact information 110C associated with the users of directory system 100. For example, third party sources 134 may include social networks such as LinkedInTM, FacebookTM, MySpaceTM, TwitterTM, GoogleTM, or the like, or any combination thereof. Contact information 110B and 110C may comprise addresses, phone numbers, contacts in address books, profile information, social network associations, pictures, or the like, or any combination thereof that may be associated with a person, company, or any other entity.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polish by incorporating public, private and software platform resources from Vendrow for the plurality of sources in Polish to improve reconciliation. The motivation would have been to aggregate identity information from disparate sources and complete user profiles by correcting errors and missing information for the corresponding profiles from other sources (Vendrow, p. 90).
Claim 1, Polish-Vendrow teaches a method similar to the operations of claim 13 above. Claim 1 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 13.
Claim 18, Polish-Vendrow teaches is a non-transitory computer medium storing instructions to cause one or more processors to perform operations (Polish, p. 104, “The pre-meet/connect module 222” comprising instructions. “The hardware unit 210 comprises the processor 212, memory 214, communications unit 216, and I/O interface 218. The processor 21 executes the instructions stored in memory to drive each of the modules.”). The operations are similar to functions of claim 13 above. Claim 18 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 13.
B. Claims 2 and 14, Polish-Vendrow teaches (the method) the apparatus of claims 1 and 13, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
transmit the resolved participant information to a client device for display, the client device associated with an event organizer for the event (Polish, p. 379, 383-384, “A System Profile is created for everyone who either “calls” a System Meeting or is an Invitee to or Participant in a System Meeting. (see definitions below for System Meeting”. There person that calls a meeting in the organizer.).
C. Claim 6, Polish-Vendrow teaches the method of claim 1, wherein certain of the public resources are excluded based on at least one of privacy or law enforcement issues (Polish, Based on privacy indicated by permitted access. See p. 117, “Input data is acquired from various sources, either comprehensively, or with some filters in place. Input feeds may be automatically received and the user data packet updated or input feeds may be designated at any point or designated times etc. These operations are collectively indicated by block 412.” “In operation, the user data packets once created are dynamically updated, as designated by block 416. The user data packets are “floating” packets of data that are easily accessible across platforms, creating a repository of user information that is dynamically compiled and instantly usable as needed. A floating user data packet is illustrated at 411 and is accessible by different platforms, designated at P1, P2, and Pn, as many as authorized to access the user data.”).
D. Claims 7, Polish-Vendrow teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
gathering company information from public, private, software platform resources, the company information for a company associated with the event (Polish, p. 367, “A primary focus is on figuring out the “identity” of the System User and building an accurate profile for users that takes into account multiple data sources (i.e., builds from a variety of inputs). This process also builds an accurate profile for the meeting itself and/or a series of recurring meetings. It automatically attributes meetings to the right organization, project etc.” Organizations are considered equivalent to companies.).
E. Claim 11, Polish-Vendrow teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the positive action is one of an acceptance to an invitation to the event or a registration for the event (Polish, p. 202-204, p. 202-204, “The System Calendar is automatically updated with any New Invitee. System will follow the same process for each New Invitee as it did for the original ones. RSVPs. The System Calendar is updated automatically for each RSVP—yes, no, maybe.”).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polish and Vendrow in view of Saylor et al., US 9361392 B1 (hereafter referred to as Saylor).
A. Claims 3-4 and 15, Polish teaches the apparatus (the method) of claim 13 (claim 1), as cited above. Polish does not specifically teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to: receive permission from the participant to access a private resource associated with the participant; and format the resolved participant information for export to private resources associated with an event organizer and the participant. However, Saylor teaches receive permission from the participant to access a private resource associated with the participant (column 17, lines 20-40; “the particular user identity first may grant the application hosted by computing system 404 a token 412 (or some other form of access mechanism or right (e.g., a password or PIN)) that authorizes the application to extract such data from the electronic social networking platform 402 on behalf of the particular user identity.”); and
format the resolved participant information for export to private resources (column 19, lines 19-30; “the application hosted by computing system 404 may process the extracted data stored in the database(s) and load the processed data into a data warehouse (e.g., an on-line analytical processing (OLAP) data warehouse) that may facilitate reporting and analysis of the processed data.”) associated with an event organizer and the participant (column 6, lines 32-41; “the electronic social networking platforms may enable one or more designated representatives associated with the event (e.g., the hosts) to share information and exchange electronic communications with user identities who have been invited to the event via the “event page.”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polish to substitute extracting and reformatting for analysis from Saylor for the extracting and aggregating participant information from Polish to improve effectiveness. The motivation would have been to leverage the analysis to glean information that will add to the participant’s profile.
Claim(s) 8, 16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polish and Vendorw in view of Udezue et al., US 20190073640 A1 (hereafter referred to as Udezue).
A. Claims 8 and 16 and 20, Polish-Vendrow (the method) the apparatus (the non-transitory computer readable medium) of claims 1, 13, 17, respectively, wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
gather company information from public, private, and software platform resources, the company information for a company associated with the event (Polish, p. 367, “A primary focus is on figuring out the “identity” of the System User and building an accurate profile for users that takes into account multiple data sources (i.e., builds from a variety of inputs). This process also builds an accurate profile for the meeting itself and/or a series of recurring meetings. It automatically attributes meetings to the right organization, project etc.” Organizations are considered equivalent to companies.); and
populate system profile for the meeting from resolved company information (Polish, p. 367, “…[B]uilding an accurate profile for users that takes into account multiple data sources (i.e., builds from a variety of inputs). This process also builds an accurate profile for the meeting itself and/or a series of recurring meetings. It automatically attributes meetings to the right organization, project etc.” Organizations are considered equivalent to companies.). Polish-Vendrow does not specifically teach the system profile for the meeting is event material. However, in the same field of endeavor, Udezue teaches populate system profile for the meeting from resolved company information (p. 39, “obtaining and updating calendar items with references to data items, content items or media data may be performed by a program, process, service or other software element that is separate from the event application 110 and executes on the same server computer 105 or a different computer.” And p. 43, The participant identifier include company information from a company-wide directory. “These identifiers may be compared with the list of participants in the calendar item. “…in addition, the identifiers may be compared with a contact list, such as a company-wide employee directory” See also p. 68, “Once obtained, data from the calendar item may be processed or otherwise extracted in any manner. The data may include, but is not limited to: a start date, a start time, an end date, an end time, a location, a subject, zero or more attachments…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polish-Vendrow to substitute updated event materials from Udezue to ensure that each participant receives accurate resources. Ensuring accurate attachments will improve meeting effectiveness.
Claim(s) 5, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polish-Vendrow in view of Rogynskyy et al., US 2019/0364131 A1 (hereafter referred to Rogynskyy).
A. Claims 5, Polish teaches the method of claim 1, wherein gathering information about the participant from public and private resources as cited above. Polish does not specifically teach optimizing which of the public, private, or system resources to search based on accuracy, reliability, and relevancy of the participant information. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rogynskyy teaches optimizing which of the public, private, and system resources to search based on accuracy (p. 102, “The system 200 is configured to process and accept all data points but can assign different contribution scores based on the source of the data point and allow the system 200 to accurately maintain a state of the node profile even if some of the data that is received may be inaccurate or stale.”), reliability (p. 487, “A trust score of the source of the data point can indicate a trustworthiness of the source of the data point.”), and relevancy of the participant information (p. 119, “the node profile manager 220 can also identify other node profiles to which the electronic activity can be matched and identify likely node profiles based on connection strengths between the node profiles to which the electronic activity can be matched and the one or more likely node profiles”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polish-Vendrow to substitute accuracy, reliability and relevancy of participant information from Rogynskyy for the resolved participant information from Polish to improve effectiveness. The motivation would have been to improve learning and feedback and thereby enable even more accurate gathered information.
B. Claim 9, Polish-Vendrow teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: as cited above. Polish does not specifically teach further comprising: overriding, by an event organizer, intermediate resolved participant information due to inaccurate information. However, in the same field of endeavor, Rogynskyy teaches overriding, by an event organizer (administrator), intermediate resolved participant information due to inaccurate information (p. 238, “the data source provider (for example, an administrator at the data source provider) can provide feedback when an electronic activity is incorrectly linked and the matching policy can be updated based on the feedback.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polish-Vendrow to substitute overriding resolved participant information from Rogynskyy for the resolved participant information from Polish-Vendrow to improve effectiveness. The motivation would have been to improve policy and thereby enable even more accurate gathered information.
C. Regarding dependent claim 12, Polish-Vendrow teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
resolving consistency of the gathered participant information from the public,
private, or system resources as cited above. Polish-Vendrow does not specifically teach placing
terms in the gathered participant information into categories; and applying rules to reconcile
multiple terms when present in a category. However, Rogynskyy teaches (p. 74, “the node
graph generation system 200 can be configured to manage electronic activities and one or
more systems of record for one or more enterprises, organizations, companies, businesses,
institutions or any other group associated with a plurality of electronic activity accounts.”)
placing terms in the gathered participant information into categories (p. 85, “the electronic
activity ingestor 205 can identify one or more fields of the electronic activity and apply one or
more normalization techniques to normalize the values included in the one or more fields.”);
and applying rules to reconcile multiple terms when present in a category (p. 78, “the electronic activity ingestor 205 can format the values of the fields to allow content filters to apply one or more policies to identify one or more regex patterns for filtering the content”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Polish-Vendrow to substitute categories for participant information from Rogynskyy for the resolved participant information from Polish-Vendrow to improve effectiveness. The motivation would have been to refine understanding of the gather information and thereby enable even more refine the gathered participant information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boydstun et al., US 7571473 B1, teaches an embodiment of the invention is a system for identity management. Identity management systems might use different naming standards and other protocols for managing user IDs, passwords, and other identity-related attributes. Since each identity management system might have its own data store to hold identity information, maintenance of multiple identity management systems and data stores can be complex, contradicting, cumbersome, and error prone. The inventive system includes an identity management data store, a component, which may also be referred to as a human resources input, is operable for accepting and aggregating multiple authoritative identity sources of information into a single digital identity for each person or human resource.
Jones et al., US 20140040777 A1, teaches the conferencing system 102 determines a user profile 126 for at least one of the participants 112. At block 206, the conferencing system 102 reads the user profile 126 and determines one or more associated participant profile parameters 132. It should be appreciated that the participant profile parameters 132 may comprise any suitable parameters for defining, configuring, and presenting participant-related information in the conference user interface 114 (e.g., name, job title, contact information, photographs, social networking profiles, social networking feeds, personal greetings, or any other user-specific information or presentation effects).
Ulm, US 20140304260 A1, teaches on behalf of the user, the contact information manager processes the contact information from the multiple services. Upon retrieval of the contact information from the services 150, the contact information manager 140 determines if a conflict exists between contact information specifying how to reach a target contact. It may not be necessary to prompt the user because the contact information manager 140 may be able to reconcile the information. For example, the contact information for John Smith as retrieved from a first service such as service 150-1 may indicate a corresponding phone number of 508-678-9876. By chance, the contact information for John Smith as retrieved from a second service such as service 150-2 also may indicate a corresponding phone number of 508-678-9876. Based on matching of information other than just a name of the contact, the contact information manager 140 can assume that this is the same contact (and consolidate it in the same grouping).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICE L WINDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3935. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KAMAL B DIVECHA can be reached at (571)272-5863. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Patrice L Winder/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights