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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on May 28, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on January 9, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 13, and 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,321,899 (“the reference patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are anticipated, respectively, by claims 1-20 of the reference patent. Every limitation in the instant application claims is recited in the conflicting reference patent claims, and the differences between the claims are highlighted below by bolding all limitations that differ and italicizing additional limitations, that will be addressed below.
Instant Application 19/221,230
US Patent No. 12,321,899
1. A method for providing a feedback report following a live event that comprises audio and video collaboration between two or more participants, the method comprising:
receiving, at a group-based communication system, an indication that the live event has been completed;
identifying a first set of data aggregated and consolidated from data associated with the live event, the identifying comprising generation of conversation primitive identifiers that are based at least in part on one or more determined topics from the live event and that associate a set of group-based communication interactions of the group-based communication system with a set of content created in association with the live event ;
indexing the first set of data based at least in part on the conversation primitive identifiers;
generating the feedback report, wherein the feedback report comprises an aggregation of the first set of data for a subset of users of the group-based communication system; and
causing display of the feedback report in an interactive user interface of the group-based communication system that is associated with the live event, wherein causing display of the feedback report comprises configuring, via one or more rendering instructions, a feedback report interface within a channel of the group-based communication system to display at least a portion of the first set of data.
7. A method for providing a feedback report following a meeting, the method comprising:
receiving, from a third party event scheduling resource, an event occurrence data structure associated with the meeting that indicates one or more group-based communication channels that are associated with the meeting and over which a plurality of messages associated with the meeting were communicated;
identifying a plurality of meeting elements associated with the meeting, the meeting comprising communication over the one or more group-based communication channels between two or more participants of a group-based communication system, wherein identifying the plurality of meeting elements comprises parsing the plurality of messages to identify one or more communication segments comprising at least a portion of the plurality of messages that are associated with a conversation topic, one or more content creation occurrences associated with the plurality of meeting elements, and a content creation topic associated with the one or more content creation occurrences, the one or more content creation occurrences being associated with electronic creation of content during the meeting, wherein identifying the plurality of meeting elements further comprises identifying that the conversation topic and the content creation topic correspond with a title of the meeting;
generating conversation primitive identifiers that are associated with the plurality of meeting elements;
indexing the plurality of meeting elements based at least in part on the conversation primitive identifiers;
retrieving information indicative of the plurality of meeting elements from the meeting based at least in part on the indexing;
generating the feedback report, wherein the feedback report comprises one or more meeting elements from the plurality of meeting elements;
storing the feedback report on a group-based communication repository, wherein the feedback report is accessible to at least one of the two or more participants or other users of the group-based communication system;
receiving a request to access the feedback report from a first participant of the two or more participants; and
causing display of the feedback report to the first participant within a channel of the group-based communication system that is associated with the meeting, wherein causing display of the feedback report comprises configuring, via one or more rendering instructions, a single event occurrence feedback report interface within the channel of the group-based communication system to display the one or more meeting elements.
8. An apparatus for providing a feedback report following a live event that comprises audio and video collaboration between two or more participants, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code; and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to:
receiving, at a group-based communication system, an indication that the live event has been completed;
identifying a first set of data aggregated and consolidated from data associated with the live event, the identifying comprising generation of conversation primitive identifiers that are based at least in part on one or more determined topics from the live event and that associate a set of group-based communication interactions of the group-based communication system with a set of content created in association with the live event ;
indexing the first set of data based at least in part on the conversation primitive identifiers;
generating the feedback report, wherein the feedback report comprises an aggregation of the first set of data for a subset of users of the group-based communication system; and
causing display of the feedback report in an interactive user interface of the group-based communication system that is associated with the live event, wherein causing display of the feedback report comprises configuring, via one or more rendering instructions, a feedback report interface within a channel of the group-based communication system to display at least a portion of the first set of data.
13. A system comprising:
at least one processor; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method for providing a feedback report following a meeting, the method comprising:
receiving, from a third party event scheduling resource, an event occurrence data structure associated with the meeting that indicates one or more group-based communication channels that are associated with the meeting and over which a plurality of messages associated with the meeting were communicated;
identifying a plurality of meeting elements associated with the meeting, the meeting comprising communication over the one or more group-based communication channels between two or more participants of a group-based communication system, wherein identifying the plurality of meeting elements comprises parsing the plurality of messages to identify one or more communication segments comprising at least a portion of the plurality of messages that are associated with a conversation topic, one or more content creation occurrences associated with the plurality of meeting elements, and a content creation topic associated with the one or more content creation occurrences, the one or more content creation occurrences being associated with electronic creation of content during the meeting, wherein identifying the plurality of meeting elements further comprises identifying that the conversation topic and the content creation topic correspond with a title of the meeting;
generating conversation primitive identifiers that are associated with the plurality of meeting elements;
indexing the plurality of meeting elements based at least in part on the conversation primitive identifiers;
retrieving information indicative of the plurality of meeting elements from the meeting based at least in part on the indexing;
generating the feedback report, wherein the feedback report comprises one or more meeting elements from the plurality of meeting elements;
storing the feedback report on a group-based communication repository, wherein the feedback report is accessible to at least one of the two or more participants or other users of the group-based communication system;
receiving a request to access the feedback report from a first participant of the two or more participants; and
causing display of the feedback report to the first participant within a channel of the group-based communication system that is associated with the meeting, wherein causing display of the feedback report comprises configuring, via one or more rendering instructions, a single event occurrence feedback report interface within the channel of the group-based communication system to display the one or more meeting elements.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for providing a feedback report following a live event that comprises audio and video collaboration between two or more participants, the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors to:
receiving, at a group-based communication system, an indication that the live event has been completed;
identifying a first set of data aggregated and consolidated from data associated with the live event, the identifying comprising generation of conversation primitive identifiers that are based at least in part on one or more determined topics from the live event and that associate a set of group-based communication interactions of the group-based communication system with a set of content created in association with the live event ;
indexing the first set of data based at least in part on the conversation primitive identifiers;
generating the feedback report, wherein the feedback report comprises an aggregation of the first set of data for a subset of users of the group-based communication system; and
causing display of the feedback report in an interactive user interface of the group-based communication system that is associated with the live event, wherein causing display of the feedback report comprises configuring, via one or more rendering instructions, a feedback report interface within a channel of the group-based communication system to display at least a portion of the first set of data.
1. One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method for providing a feedback report following a meeting, the method comprising:
receiving, from a third party event scheduling resource, an event occurrence data structure associated with the meeting that indicates one or more group-based communication channels that are associated with the meeting and over which a plurality of messages associated with the meeting were communicated;
identifying a plurality of meeting elements associated with the meeting, the meeting comprising communication over the one or more group-based communication channels between two or more participants of a group-based communication system, wherein identifying the plurality of meeting elements comprises parsing the plurality of messages to identify one or more communication segments comprising at least a portion of the plurality of messages that are associated with a conversation topic, one or more content creation occurrences associated with the plurality of meeting elements, and a content creation topic associated with the one or more content creation occurrences, the one or more content creation occurrences being associated with electronic creation of content during the meeting, wherein identifying the plurality of meeting elements further comprises identifying that the conversation topic and the content creation topic correspond with a title of the meeting;
generating conversation primitive identifiers that are associated with the plurality of meeting elements;
indexing the plurality of meeting elements based at least in part on the conversation primitive identifiers;
retrieving information indicative of the plurality of meeting elements from the meeting based at least in part on the indexing;
generating the feedback report, wherein the feedback report comprises one or more meeting elements from the plurality of meeting elements;
storing the feedback report on a group-based communication repository, wherein the feedback report is accessible to at least one of the two or more participants or other users of the group-based communication system;
receiving a request to access the feedback report from a first participant of the two or more participants; and
causing display of the feedback report to the first participant within a channel of the group-based communication system that is associated with the meeting, wherein causing display of the feedback report comprises configuring, via one or more rendering instructions, a single event occurrence feedback report interface within the channel of the group-based communication system to display the one or more meeting elements.
As shown in the mapping above, claims 7, 13, and 1 of the reference patent include all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application, while also reciting further limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 8, which is analyzed as following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system for providing a feedback report. Thus, the claim is to be a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a system for providing a feedback report following a live event that comprises audio and video collaboration between two or more participants. The claim recites the steps: identifying a first set of data aggregated and consolidated from data associated with the live event…; indexing the first set of data based at least in part on the conversation primitive identifiers; and generating the feedback report, wherein the feedback report comprises an aggregation of the first set of data for a subset of users of the group-based communication system, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, an following rules or instructions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: identifying a first set of data aggregated and consolidated from data associated with the live event…; indexing the first set of data based at least in part on the conversation primitive identifiers; and generating the feedback report, wherein the feedback report comprises an aggregation of the first set of data for a subset of users of the group-based communication system, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “one or more memories”, ”one or more processors”, “receiving, at a group-based communication systems, an indication that the live even has been completed”, and “causing display of the feedback report in an interactive user interface of the group-based communication system that is associated with the live event, wherein causing display of the feedback report comprises configuring, via one or more rendering instructions, a feedback report interface within a channel of the group-based communication system to display at least a portion of the first set of data.”
The additional elements “receiving, at a group-based communication systems, an indication that the live even has been completed” and “causing display of the feedback report in an interactive user interface of the group-based communication system that is associated with the live event, wherein causing display of the feedback report comprises configuring, via one or more rendering instructions, a feedback report interface within a channel of the group-based communication system to display at least a portion of the first set of data”, are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, transmitting, and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the steps of “receiving an indication…; identifying a first set of data aggregated and consolidated…; indexing the first set of data…; generating the feedback report…; and causing display of the feedback report…”, are recited as being performed by the processors and the memories. The processors and the memories are recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “receiving an indication…; and causing display of the feedback report…”, the processors and the memories are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering and outputting data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “identifying a first set of data aggregated and consolidated…; indexing the first set of data…; and generating the feedback report…;”, the processors and the memories are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processors, the memories, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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 2106.05(f).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improvement to the processors, the memories, the group-based communication system, and the user interface, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, displaying data and performing an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “receiving, at a group-based communication systems, an indication that the live even has been completed” and “causing display of the feedback report in an interactive user interface of the group-based communication system that is associated with the live event, wherein causing display of the feedback report comprises configuring, via one or more rendering instructions, a feedback report interface within a channel of the group-based communication system to display at least a portion of the first set of data” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements of “receiving, at a group-based communication systems, an indication that the live even has been completed” and “causing display of the feedback report in an interactive user interface of the group-based communication system that is associated with the live event, wherein causing display of the feedback report comprises configuring, via one or more rendering instructions, a feedback report interface within a channel of the group-based communication system to display at least a portion of the first set of data” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processors and memories to perform limitations “receiving an indication…; identifying a first set of data aggregated and consolidated…; indexing the first set of data…; generating the feedback report…; and causing display of the feedback report…”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 15, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 1 directed to a method, independent claim 15 directed to a medium, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent system claim 8.
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 9, and 16, the claims recite the additional elements wherein the at least the portion of the first set of data is displayed as a plurality of user interface elements included in the feedback report, which are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. (See claim 8 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 10, and 17, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the set of group-based communication interactions comprise questions raised by at least one participant of the two or more participants, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 8. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4, 11, and 18, the claims recite the additional elements wherein the feedback report is accessible by a creator of the live event using access controls of the group-based communication system, which are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. (See claim 8 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 5, 12, and 19, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting organizing, based at least in part on the conversation primitive identifiers, the set of group-based communication interactions into respective conversation segments that each describe a respective common conversation topic…, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 8. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 6, 13, and 20, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting identifying one or more content creation occurrences that occurred during the live event, the one or more content creation occurrences being associated with electronic creation of content during the live event, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 8. Moreover, the claims recite the additional elements wherein causing display of the feedback report comprises causing display of one or more representations of the content, which are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. (See claim 8 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 14, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the content comprises a group-based communication channel, a user profile identifier, a task object, an indication of user profile (such as a pointer with reference to a user profile), a file associated with a third party event scheduling resource, that fall under the category of Organizing Human activity and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 8. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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)(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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Silva et al. (hereinafter Silva, US 2018/0077099).
Regarding claim 1, Silva discloses a method for providing a feedback report following a live event that comprises audio and video collaboration between two or more participants, the method comprising:
receiving, at a group-based communication system, an indication that the live event has been completed (para [0064 In embodiments, as described herein, in the event that a user who had last attention has returned his or her attention to the meeting, the method may proceed to block 512 and the user may be provided with a real-time meeting summary (e.g., set of content summary data) for the portion of the meeting to which he or she was not attentive. The process of monitoring a user's attentiveness, capturing meeting content during time periods of inattentiveness, and providing summary data to the user may continue until completion of the meeting at block 514);
identifying a first set of data aggregated and consolidated from data associated with the live event, the identifying comprising generation of conversation primitive identifiers that are based at least in part on one or more determined topics from the live event and that associate a set of group-based communication interactions of the group-based communication system with a set of content created in association with the live event (para [0012], Data regarding user behavior and attentiveness may be used to target portions of meeting content for summary or recapping. Portions of a meeting associated with lapsed user attention may be dynamically identified and recorded. When a user's attention returns to the meeting, a summary of the meeting content relating to the missed portion of the meeting may be presented to the user. Meeting summaries may make use of data pertaining to user behavior, preferences, and profile information to generate summaries that are individually tailored to a particular user. Leveraging user behavior and attentiveness for targeted meeting summary generation may facilitate user comprehension, timeliness, low-intrusion, and meeting efficiency; para [0031], the electronic meeting may include a first and a second user located in separate physical locations at block 206. The electronic meeting may include a first user in a first physical location and a second user in a second physical location, where the first physical location differs from the second physical location. Generally, the electronic meeting may include a gathering, conference, discussion, collaboration, or other communication session between individuals over an electronic medium. In embodiments, the electronic meeting may be performed using Internet-based software which allows individuals and groups stationed in separate geographical locations to facilitate discussion and collaboration without travel. In certain embodiments, the electronic meeting may include conference calls, web conferences, Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) based group interactions, or the like. In certain embodiments, the electronic meeting may include one or more co-located users);
indexing the first set of data based at least in part on the conversation primitive identifiers (para [0039], Natural language processing techniques (e.g., part-of-speech tagging, sentiment analysis, morphological segmentation) may be used to parse syntactic and semantic content of the electronic meeting and identify contextually-relevant points or topics for summary. In embodiments, determining the set of content summary data may include using machine learning-based methods of automatic summarization to generate a representative outline or abstract of the set of meeting data. For instance, extraction techniques may be used to select a subset of words, phrases, images, video clips, or audio content from the set of meeting data for incorporation in the set of content summary data. As another example, abstraction methods may be used to construct a holistic semantic representation of the set of meeting data for inclusion in the set of content summary data. Other methods of determining the set of content summary data based on the set of meeting data are also possible; para [0055], The first topic may include a subject matter or theme specified by the first user or automatically determined based on a set of profile data for the first user. As an example, consider that a first user specifies a first topic of “product manufacturing.” Accordingly, the meeting management engine may parse the set of meeting data (e.g., using content analysis techniques to analyze semantic and syntactic content of the electronic meeting) to ascertain a subset of the meeting data that pertains to the topic of “product manufacturing.” In embodiments, the first subset of the set of meeting data may be used to generate the set of content summary data. Other methods of ingesting the first subset of the set of meeting data are also possible; para [0056], the meeting management engine may parse the set of meeting data (e.g., using content analysis techniques to analyze semantic and syntactic content of the electronic meeting) and ascertain a subset of the meeting data that pertains to a topic of “2nd quarter marketing budget” (e.g., a topic substantially unrelated to the role of the first user). As such, the second subset of meeting data that pertains to the topic of “2nd quarter marketing budget” may be filtered out of the set of content summary data for the first user. Other methods of disregarding the second subset of the set of meeting data are also possible);
generating the feedback report, wherein the feedback report comprises an aggregation of the first set of data for a subset of users of the group-based communication system (para [0012], Data regarding user behavior and attentiveness may be used to target portions of meeting content for summary or recapping. Portions of a meeting associated with lapsed user attention may be dynamically identified and recorded; para [0029], generating a set of content summary data to recap the content of the meeting for a user. One or more portions of the meeting associated with low user attentiveness may be automatically recorded, and the set of content summary data may be presented when the user's attention returns to the meeting); and
causing display of the feedback report in an interactive user interface of the group-based communication system that is associated with the live event, wherein causing display of the feedback report comprises configuring, via one or more rendering instructions, a feedback report interface within a channel of the group-based communication system to display at least a portion of the first set of data (para [0042], At block 290, the set of content summary data may be provided. The set of content summary data may be provided by the meeting management engine to the first user. Generally, providing can include presenting, displaying, sending, conveying, exhibiting, or supplying the set of content summary data to the first user. In embodiments, providing may include displaying the set of content summary data to the user in response to detecting that the user is attentive to the electronic meeting. In embodiments, aspects of the disclosure relate to delivering the set of content summary data to the user seamlessly (e.g., unobtrusively, without interrupting the electronic meeting). For example, in certain embodiments, the set of content summary data may be provided as a text passage in an unused area of the screen used for displaying the electronic meeting. In embodiments, providing the set of content summary data may include presenting a series of consecutive video clips subtitled with accompanying text to recap the main points of a portion of the electronic meeting).
Regarding claim 2, Silva discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least the portion of the first set of data is displayed as a plurality of user interface elements included in the feedback report. (para [0042], The set of content summary data may be provided by the meeting management engine to the first user. Generally, providing can include presenting, displaying, sending, conveying, exhibiting, or supplying the set of content summary data to the first user).
Regarding claim 3, Silva discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the set of group-based communication interactions comprise questions raised by at least one participant of the two or more participants (para [0041], the content summary data may include one or more of a number of different types at block 272. In embodiments, the set of content summary data may include a text transcript. The text transcript may include a textual copy or reproduction of the dialogue, discussion, questions, and answers of the electronic meeting (e.g., word-for-word dialogue reproduction)).
Regarding claim 4, Silva discloses method of claim 1, wherein the feedback report is accessible by a creator of the live event using access controls of the group-based communication system (para [0076], A user can access any of the resources that reside in the cloud at any time, and from anywhere across the Internet. In context of the present disclosure, a user may access applications or related data available in the cloud. For example, the nodes used to create a stream computing application may be virtual machines hosted by a cloud service provider. Doing so allows a user to access this information from any computing system attached to a network connected to the cloud (e.g., the Internet).).
Regarding claim 5, Silva discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: organizing, based at least in part on the conversation primitive identifiers, the set of group-based communication interactions into respective conversation segments that each describe a respective common conversation topic, a respective relationship to one or more other conversation segments, one or more indications of send order proximity, one or more indications of send time proximity, one or more indications of user identifier proximity, or any combination thereof (para [0055], determining the set of content summary data for the electronic meeting may include ingesting a first subset of the set of meeting data that pertains to a first topic of the electronic meeting at module 446. The first subset of the set of meeting data may be ingested with respect to the set of content summary data. Generally, ingesting can include importing, collecting, taking in, processing, or otherwise receiving the first subset of the set of meeting data. As described herein, aspects of the disclosure relate to the recognition that, in certain situations, particular users may only wish to view/listen/receive summary data for a portion of the electronic meeting that is associated with a particular topic or subject. Accordingly, in embodiments, aspects of the disclosure relate to identifying a first subset of the meeting data that pertains to a first topic. The first topic may include a subject matter or theme specified by the first user or automatically determined based on a set of profile data for the first user. As an example, consider that a first user specifies a first topic of “product manufacturing.” Accordingly, the meeting management engine may parse the set of meeting data (e.g., using content analysis techniques to analyze semantic and syntactic content of the electronic meeting) to ascertain a subset of the meeting data that pertains to the topic of “product manufacturing.”)
Regarding claim 6, Silva discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying one or more content creation occurrences that occurred during the live event, the one or more content creation occurrences being associated with electronic creation of content during the live event (para [0043], During an electronic meeting, a first user may leave the electronic meeting to go to the restroom at a first time (e.g., 2:13 PM). A meeting management engine may assess the attentiveness of the first user and detect a first attentiveness factor that indicates that the first user is not attentive to the meeting (e.g., the first user is absent, and therefore not attentive to the meeting). In response to detecting that the first user is not attentive to the electronic meeting, the meeting management engine may initiate capturing of a set of meeting data by recording video and audio content of the electronic meeting);
wherein causing display of the feedback report comprises causing display of one or more representations of the content (para [0042], At block 290, the set of content summary data may be provided. The set of content summary data may be provided by the meeting management engine to the first user. Generally, providing can include presenting, displaying, sending, conveying, exhibiting, or supplying the set of content summary data to the first user. In embodiments, providing may include displaying the set of content summary data to the user in response to detecting that the user is attentive to the electronic meeting. In embodiments, aspects of the disclosure relate to delivering the set of content summary data to the user seamlessly (e.g., unobtrusively, without interrupting the electronic meeting)).
Regarding claim 7, Silva discloses method of claim 6, wherein the content comprises a group-based communication channel, a user profile identifier, a task object, an indication of user profile (such as a pointer with reference to a user profile), a file associated with a third party event scheduling resource, a file associated with to the group-based communication system, a file referenced via URL, a user account, an event occurrence, metadata associated with the set of group-based communication interactions, a user identifier of a user with access rights to the set of group- based communication interactions, or any combination thereof. (para [0039], At block 270, a set of content summary data for the electronic meeting between the first time and the second time may be determined. The set of content summary data may be determined by the meeting management engine in an automated fashion based on the set of meeting data. Generally, determining can include formulating, composing, computing, resolving, or ascertaining the set of content summary data for the electronic meeting. The set of content summary data may include information that outlines, recaps, compiles, abridges, or otherwise summarizes the content (e.g., developments, discussion, substance) of the electronic meeting. In embodiments, determining may include examining the captured set of meeting data, and performing one or more of a set of content analysis techniques (e.g., optical character recognition, discourse analysis, information retrieval) to decipher the development (e.g., flow of discussion, dialogues, questions, answers, presentations) of the electronic meeting.).
Regarding claims 8-14, Silva discloses an apparatus for providing a feedback report following a live event that comprises audio and video collaboration between two or more participants, comprising:
one or more memories storing processor-executable code (see figure 1, memory 104); and
one or more processors (see figure 1, processor 102) coupled with the one or more memories and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the apparatus to perform the method as described in claims 1-6 above, therefore, are rejected by the same rationale.
Claims 15-20 are written in non-transitory computer-readable medium and contain the same limitations found in claims 1-6 described above, therefore, are rejected by the same rationale
Conclusion
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
11. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Boston et al. (US 2013/0325972) disclose the method involves detecting a set of topics of interest to parties to the set of meetings utilizing user model associated with user. Topic-related content associated with set of topics of interest to parties is extracted from meeting data corresponding to set of meetings.
Sloyer et al. (US 2012/0284640) disclose the method involves determining summary-content time-frame for the e-meeting participant based on the portions of an e-meeting to summarize for the e-meeting participant.
Alexandrov et al. (US 2012/0162349) disclose the method involves storing a portion of the live screen data during the ongoing online meeting and receiving a selection of a point in time earlier than the current point in time at the viewer computing device.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 September 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights