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 .
Priority
This application filed on June 16, 2025 discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in the prior U.S. Patent Application No. 18/405,332, filed January 5, 2024, currently U.S. Patent No. 12,341,620, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/582,830, filed January 24, 2022, currently U.S. Patent No. 11/870,598, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Accordingly, this application may constitute a continuation or division. The benefit of the filing date, January 24, 2022, of the prior application is acknowledged, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 26, 2025 was filed before the mailing of a first Office Action on the merits. Since the submission complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Regarding Claim 9 and 17,
The claims recites “receiving an indication of a location of the second participant within the virtual expo; and presenting a graphical indication of a direction to the location of the second participant within the virtual expo.” However, the only paragraph that resembles these limitations by disclosing “direction” is as follows:
After identifying participants Band C, the video conference provider 310 provides indications corresponding to participants B and C to identify a direction on the virtual expo floor 710 to each. After receiving the indications, participant A's client device displays graphical indicators 1330a-b to identify the directions to the two identified participants. Specification, paragraph [00106], emphasis added.
This paragraph is not sufficient to support the recited claims and therefore, the claims are rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 19,
The three independent claims recite “in response to receiving a selection of the second representation, present an option to request a meeting with the second participant” and “in response to receiving a selection of the option, transmit a request to initiate a virtual interaction with the second participant.” These underlined portions of the above two limitations are recited in such a confusing way that a person or ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would find it difficult to understand the meaning. Since the underlined portions are not specifically disclosed in the specification, a POSITA would have to guess what is meant. Examiner suggests that Applicant should provide more direct terminology in the recitations.
Regarding Claims 2 and 12,
The claims are recited in the same confusing manner as noted above, “determine/determining an interaction with the second representation of the second participant.” More clarity is needed in the recitations.
Regarding Claim 8,
The claim recites the very confusing “wherein the graphical representation further comprises a third representation of a third participant in the virtual expo, and wherein the second participant and the third participant are participating in a second virtual interaction when the selection of the second representation is received, and wherein joining the first client device to the virtual interaction comprises joining the first client device to the second virtual interaction.” This claim needs major revision to be understandable to a POSITA.
Regarding Claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20,
Because the claims depend from rejected base claims, they are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons set forth below.
Independent Claims 1, 11, and 19 all recite similar subject matter and independent Claim 1 recites as follows:
1. A method comprising:
joining, by a first client device, a virtual expo hosted by a video conference provider, the first client device associated with a first participant in the virtual expo;
presenting, by the first client device, a graphical representation of the virtual expo, the graphical representation comprising a first representation of the first participant and a second representation of a second participant in the virtual expo;
in response to receiving a selection of the second representation, presenting an option to request a meeting with the second participant;
in response to receiving a selection of the option, transmitting a request to initiate a virtual interaction with the second participant; and
joining the first client device to the virtual interaction..
The Detailed Description of the specification provides the following information about the system.
Video conference providers can enable users to host, join, and participate in video conference meetings with one or more other participants. In addition, a video conference provider can provide virtual conference experiences, such as a virtual expo (or "expo") that provides a virtual expo space in which one or more virtual expo booths may be arrayed. The virtual expo booths may be hosted by sponsors of the virtual expo, by the host of the virtual expo, or by an attendee of the expo. Such virtual expos, or virtual video conference expos, can enable participants to navigate the expo space to visit one or more of the expo booths, view content within the expo booths, or obtain information materials from the expo booths. Further, the expo booths themselves may provide one or more virtual interaction spaces (also referred to as "booth spaces") that participants can select between, as well as virtual "tables" where the participants can access and obtain information materials without entering into a specific booth space. During the expo, participants may join the expo according to their respective level of access, move an avatar within the expo, and interact with expo booths or other participants within the virtual expo. Specification, paragraph [0017], emphasis added.
Once the virtual expo begins, participants may join the virtual expo by
using a video conferencing client application (or "software client") on their client
devices. The video conference provider receives the requests from the various
participants to join the virtual expo, determines whether they are registered (or
otherwise authorized to join), creates a virtual avatar for the participant and
associates the user's profile with the avatar. The participant's avatar is then
positioned within the virtual expo space and information about the virtual expo is
provided to the participant's client software, such as the size and shape of the
virtual expo floor, the locations and arrangement of virtual expo booths within the
virtual expo floor, and the locations of one or more other participants. Specification, paragraph [0018], emphasis added.
In addition, the participant's software client receives information
about the locations of other participants in the expo and displays avatars for those participants within the virtual expo space. As the participant navigates the virtual expo space, they may wish to interact with another participant, based on
information that may be available to the participant, such as the other participant's name, their company, or one or more interests the other participant has included in their profile. After identifying another participant to interact with, the participant selects the other participant within their software client's graphical user interface ("GUI") and selects an option to join a conversation with the other participant. The video conference provider then provides a notice to the other participant, via their software client, that the participant would like to have a conversation with them. The other participant can then decide whether to join the conversation or decline. Specification, paragraph [0019], emphasis added.
If the other participant elects to join the conversation, the video conference provider can establish a session or a virtual meeting for the two participants to join. The participants can then interact, such as via the virtual meeting, and later end the discussion and leave the meeting, at which time the video conference provider ends the meeting. Specification, paragraph [0020], emphasis added.
The underlined sections of the above paragraphs point out that the invention is directed to managing personal behavior or interactions between people. As is stated in the above paragraphs, a video conference provider provides virtual conference experiences via a virtual expo (or "expo") that provides a virtual expo space in which one or more virtual expo booths may be arrayed. Thus, people taking part in the virtual expo attend the booths provided in order to interact with other participants.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance1, it is necessary to first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a
fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual for Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then it is necessary look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Prong One - Abstract Idea
The Revised Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation:
(a) Mathematical concepts-mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Under the Revised Guidance, if the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas above), then the claim is patent-eligible at Prong One. However, if the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated above, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis for a practical application of the judicial exception in Step 2A.
Prong Two, Step 2A - Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A, a determination is made whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
The seven identified "practical application" sections of the MPEP are cited in the Revised Guidance under Step 2A. The first four constitute “practical applications,” as follows:
(1) MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field
(2) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
(3) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
(4) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
The last three do not constitute “practical applications,” as follows:
(5) MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception
(6) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
(7) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application as determined under one or more of the MPEP sections cited above, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception, and the patent-eligibility inquiry ends. If not, then analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Prong Two, Step 2B - "Inventive Concept" or "Significantly More"
The Federal Circuit has held that a claim that recites a judicial exception under Step 2A is nonetheless patent eligible at the Step 2B if the claim recites additional elements that provide "significantly more" than the recited judicial exception. Therefore, if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A, the additional elements must be evaluated individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept by amounting to significantly more than the exception itself. Under the Revised Guidance, it is determined in Step 2B whether an additional element or combination of elements: (1) "Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present;" or (2) "simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present." See Revised Guidance, III.B.
If the Examiner determines under Step 2B that the element (or combination of elements) amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claim is eligible.
However, if a determination is made that the element and combination of elements does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claim is ineligible under Step 2B, and the claim must be rejected for lack of subject matter eligibility.
Analysis
In accordance with Prong One of the Revised Guidance, the steps recited in independent Claims 1, 11, and 19, all of which recite analogous subject matter, are directed to a judicial exception. The process recited in the independent claims describes Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, which includes managing personal behavior or interactions between people. Specifically, "a virtual expo" is provided and details are recited about the participants' requests to join the meeting, providing notifications to the other participants of the request, approval of the requests, and the participant then joining the meeting. The claim recitations encompass interactions between people and managing personal behavior. The dependent claims also recite additional limitations associated with creating additional meetings, assigning avatars to represent the attendees, determining proximity based on the distance between them, determining their common interests, and determining the subject matter of conversations. The claims appear to be directed to human interactions with respect to a virtual expo, and other than the recitations of processors, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium in Claims 11 and 19, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being classified as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Accordingly, under Prong One, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
The dependent claims also recite additional limitations associated with Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 2 and 12 recite one participant interacting with another and presenting information about the other participant in a pop-up window.
Claims 3 recites the information obtained in Claim 2 being emphasized..
Claims 4 and 13 recite presenting another pop-up window with information about a second participant.
Claims 5, 14, and 20 recite GUIs that present a “live view” of participant information.
Claims 6 and 15 recite receiving navigational input for the positioning of participant in the virtual expo.
Claims 7 recites an option to request a meeting.
Claims 8 and 16 recite interactions among three participants in the virtual expo.
Claims 9 and 17 recite locations of participants in the virtual expo.
Claims 10 and 18 recite the option for participants to join as part of a watch party in the virtual expo.
Since all the dependent claims recite subject matter that adds additional information about the method and system for facilitating commercial paper transactions, they are also rejected as being directed to an abstract idea.
Other than the recitations of processors and non-transitory computer-readable medium in Claims 11 and 19, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from being classified as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Accordingly, under Prong One, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Prong Two
Step 2A
After determining under Prong One that the claims recite a judicial exception, under Prong Two, Step 2A, the analysis is conducted to determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The identified "practical application" sections of the MPEP are cited in the Revised Guidance under Step 2A, specifying what constitutes a “practical applications,” as follows:
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field
None of the claims relate to improvements in the computer system hardware, but are merely directed to the details of the methodology for facilitating commercial virtual expos. The MPEP provides the following statement regarding such improvements: “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification (emphasis added).”
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
The only elements recited are processors and non-transitory computer-readable media. The MPEP provides the following statement regarding what constitutes a particular machine: “It is important to note that a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis added).”
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
The MPEP states as follows:
“Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two and whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (emphasis added).”
“An "article" includes a physical object or substance. The physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified (emphasis added).”
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
The MPEP states as follows: “If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility (emphasis added).”
Based on the analysis under Prong 2, Step 2A of the Revised Guidance, Claim 1 and similarly recited Claims 11 and 19 do not recite a “practical application” to overcome the judicial exception.
Prong Two
Step 2B
Next, if a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under the Revised Guidance, the additional elements must be evaluated individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept by amounting to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself. It must be determined in Step 2B whether an additional element or combination of elements: (1) “Adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present;” or (2) “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” See Revised Guidance, III.B.
In the instant application, the claims only recite generic computing elements: processors and non-transitory computer-readable medium. The components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components such as computer-readable medium and processors, both of which are “well-understood, routine, conventional activities.”
Accordingly, the analysis under the multiple steps of the Revised Guidance leads to the determination that independent Claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. 101, and so are the dependent claims, which incorporate the abstract idea by virtue of their dependencies.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. 101 and are not patent-eligible. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons set forth below.
[AltContent: rect]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 11, 14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Boufarhat (US 11,475,635 B1, hereinafter referred to as Boufarhat).
Examiner Note: In this office action, actual claim recitations are shown in italics surrounded by quotation marks to distinguish the claim recitations from comparisons to the prior art.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 19,
Boufarhat teaches:
"joining, by a first client device, a virtual expo hosted by a video conference provider, the first client device associated with a first participant in the virtual expo" (column 1, lines 51-54; column 4, lines 4-7 & 49-52; column 11, lines 21-23). [The virtual event hosting system provides virtual presentations or virtual stages for presenting users to present information and attendees to view the presentations (column 1, lines 51-54). The invention is directed to a virtual event hosting platform for providing virtual events connecting presenting users of the virtual event with attendees of the virtual events (column 4, lines 4-7). The event includes one or more expos in which sponsors can promote products and services provided by the sponsors in virtual booths to present information on exemplary topics (column 4, lines 49-52). Networking connections are created to link attendees with presenting users, presenting users with other presenting users, and attendees with other attendees (column 11, lines 21-23). ] (NOTE: The virtual event hosting system is equivalent to the “a virtual expo hosted by a video conference provider,” since the virtual presentations inherently require video conferencing, and either presenting users or other attendees to the “first client device associated with a first participant in the virtual expo.”)
"presenting, by the first client device, a graphical representation of the virtual expo, the graphical representation comprising a first representation of the first participant and a second representation of a second participant in the virtual expo" (column 6, lines 20-28; column 11, lines 21-23; column 15, lines 11-25; fig. 8, element 802). [The virtual event hosting system is a web- or cloud-based application provided on any computer device for tracking user actions when interfacing with the virtual event hosting system (column 6, lines 20-28). Networking connections are created to link attendees with presenting users, presenting users with other presenting users, and attendees with other attendees (column 11, lines 21-23). Live virtual event analytics 802 present active users of the events system associated with the event of the user; live virtual event analytics 802 track the users in real time and provide virtual location information, including sessions, expos, and events, as well as an amount of time spent at the virtual locations, as well as providing previous location information and previous time information for attendees; any virtual event analytics data is displayed in tabulated and/or graphic form for simplicity for the user.] (NOTE: The Attendees Report and the Attendee Activities Report shown in fig. 8 are equivalent to “a first representation of the first participant and a second representation of a second participant in the virtual expo.”)
"in response to receiving a selection of the second representation, presenting an option to request a meeting with the second participant " (column 21, lines 13-17). [The virtual event hosting system presents a list of attendees that the user may message to request communication, and the virtual event hosting system automatically connects the user to attendees for networking (column 21, lines 13-17).] (NOTE: The request for communication attendees is equivalent to the "presenting an option to request a meeting" and any of the other attendees to the "second participant.")
“in response to receiving a selection of the option, transmitting a request to initiate a virtual interaction with the second participant” (column 22, lines 21-26). [The attendee hears and views the presenting user and the other attendees, and the attendee requests to ask a question and be queued; the attendee can communicate with the presenting user and the other attendees can hear and view the attendee by the user interface presented to all the attendees (column 22, lines 21-26).]
“joining the first client device to the virtual interaction” (column 22, lines 21-26). [The attendee hears and views the presenting user and the other attendees, and the attendee requests to ask a question and be queued; the attendee can communicate with the presenting user and the other attendees can hear and view the attendee by the user interface presented to all the attendees (column 22, lines 21-26).]
"A system comprising: a communications interface; a non-transitory computer- readable medium; and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the communications interface and the non-transitory computer-readable medium, the one or more processors configured to execute processor-executable instructions stored in the non- transitory computer-readable medium" as recited in Claim 11 (Claim 7).
"A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor-executable instructions configured to cause one or more processors" as recited in Claim 19 (Claim 7).
Regarding Claims 5, 14, and 20,
Boufarhat teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1, 11, and 19.
Boufarhat teaches:
“presenting, by the first client device, a graphical user interface ("GUI") for the virtual interaction, the GUI providing a first live view of the first participant and a second live view of the second participant, at least one of the first or second live views comprising a video stream received from a camera of the respective participant” (column 4, lines 30-33; column 5, lines 18-24; column 5, lines 31-36; column 11, lines 42-44; fig. 1, elements 102, 104, 110, 112). [The user interface allows the attendee to have access to chat with other attendees and the presenter by text, audible, and video communication (column 4, lines 30-33). Attached to system bus 104 is a graphics card 110 which has a separate graphics-processing unit (GPU) 112 with GPU memory 114 (column 5, lines 18-24). Additional peripherals such as a microphone or video camera can also be present and connected to system bus 104, via a wired or wireless connection or connected to computer 102 (column 5, lines 31-36). Any images, videos, or promotional content from the user or the booth owner/presenter can be uploaded for presentation at the booth in the expo (column 11, lines 42-44).]
“presenting a view of the graphical representation of the virtual expo within the GUI” (column 11, lines 36-38). [The booths can comprise any video, images, text, sponsorships and app integrations, and be presented to the attendees via the virtual event hosting system (column 11, lines 36-38).]
Regarding Claim 7,
Boufarhat teaches all the limitations of parent Claim 1.
Boufarhat teaches:
“wherein the graphical representation further comprises a third representation of a third participant in the virtual expo” (column 21, lines 13-17). [The virtual event hosting system presents a list of attendees that the user may message to request communication, and the virtual event hosting system automatically connects the user to attendees for networking (column 21, lines 13-17).] (NOTE: Any one of the attendees on the list is equivalent to the " third participant in the virtual expo.")
in response to receiving a selection of the third representation, presenting an option to request a meeting with the third representation” (column 4, lines 30-33). [The user interface allows the attendee to have access to chat with other attendees and the presenter by text, audible, and video communication (column 4, lines 30-33).]
in response to receiving a selection of the option, transmitting a request to join the third participant to the virtual interaction” (column 4, lines 30-33). [The user interface allows the attendee to have access to chat with other attendees and the presenter by text, audible, and video communication (column 4, lines 30-33).] (NOTE: Any one of the attendees on the list is equivalent to the " third participant in the virtual expo.")
Regarding Claims 8 and 16,
Boufarhat teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1 and 11.
Boufarhat teaches:
“wherein the graphical representation further comprises a third representation of a third participant in the virtual expo, and wherein the second participant and the third participant are participating in a second virtual interaction when the selection of the second representation is received, and wherein joining the first client device to the virtual interaction comprises joining the first client device to the second virtual interaction” (column 4, lines 30-33). [The user interface allows the attendee to have access to chat with other attendees and the presenter by text, audible, and video communication (column 4, lines 30-33).] (NOTE: Any one of the attendees on the list is equivalent to the any one of the participants in this confusing limitation.)
Regarding Claims 9 and 17,
Boufarhat teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1 and 11.
Boufarhat teaches:
“receiving an indication of a location of the second participant within the virtual expo; and presenting a graphical indication of a direction to the location of the second participant within the virtual expo” (column 4, lines 59-63). [The virtual event hosting system tracks user interactions within the virtual event and integrates with applications of mobile devices to track user locations when the user is attending an event either in person or virtually (column 4, lines 59-63).]
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boufarhat (US 11,475,635 B1, hereinafter referred to as Boufarhat) in view of Krol et al. (US 2022/0311971 Al, hereinafter referred to as Krol).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15,
Boufarhat teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 5 and 14.
Boufarhat teaches:
“receiving, by the first client device, a navigational input corresponding to the first representation of the first participant” (column 2, lines 50-52). [The system receives input from the user indicative of a registration for the virtual event, with a selection of a stage for viewing a presentation (column 2, lines 50-52). when the user selects the attendees tab, a list of attendees across all events organized by the user may be provided, with contact information and location information displayed along with the attendee identification information (column 8, lines 26-34).] (NOTE: The location information may be broadly equivalent to “navigational input.”)
Boufarhat does not teach:
“providing an indication of the navigational input to the video conference provider.”
“presenting an updated view of the graphical representation of the virtual expo within the GUI, the updated view of the graphical representation based on a change in position of the first representation of the first participant based on the navigational input.”
Krol teaches:
“providing an indication of the navigational input to the video conference provider” (paragraphs [0011], [0121]; fig. 11, elements 1112, 1118). [When videoconferencing in a three-dimensional virtual environment, the position and direction specify a location and orientation in the three-dimensional virtual environment and are input by a first user ([0011]). Input device 1112 allows a user to input a new desired position of a virtual camera used by renderer 1118, thereby enabling navigation in the three-dimensional environment ([0121]).]
“presenting an updated view of the graphical representation of the virtual expo within the GUI, the updated view of the graphical representation based on a change in position of the first representation of the first participant based on the navigational input” (paragraphs [0030], [0121]; fig. 11, elements 1112, 1118). [The videoconferencing interface 100 is displayed to a participant, is rendered for display to the participant and is constantly updated as the videoconference progresses; the participant can navigate around a virtual environment by changing different inputs of the virtual camera's X and Y position and pan and tilt angles ([0030]).]
Both Boufarhat and Krol teach videoconferencing systems in a three-dimensional
virtual environment, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Boufarhat disclosure, the use of navigational input, as taught by Krol. Such inclusion would have provided an additional way for virtual event attendees and presenters to interact within the virtual environment and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boufarhat (US 11,475,635 B1, hereinafter referred to as Boufarhat) in view of Meybaum et al. (US 20210203703 Al, hereinafter referred to as Meybaum).
Regarding Claims 10 and 18,
Boufarhat teaches all the limitations of parent Claims 1 and 11.
Boufarhat teaches:
“receiving, by the first client device, a selection of an option to join a virtual expo booth from the virtual interaction …” (column 11, lines 21-23). [Networking connections are created to link attendees with presenting users, presenting users with other presenting users, and attendees with other attendees (column 11, lines 21-23).]
transmitting, by the first client device, an indication of the option to join the virtual expo booth from the virtual interaction …” [The attendee can communicate with the presenting user and the other attendees can hear and view the attendee by the user interface presented to all the attendees (column 22, lines 21-26).]
joining the virtual expo booth from the virtual interaction …” (column 22, lines 21-26). [The attendee can communicate with the presenting user and the other attendees can hear and view the attendee by the user interface presented to all the attendees (column 22, lines 21-26).]
“receiving, by the first client device, a navigational input corresponding to the first representation of the first participant” (column 2, lines 50-52). [
Boufarhat does not teach:
“as a/the watch party.”
“transmitting, by the first client device, an indication of the option to join the virtual expo booth from the virtual interaction as the watch party”
Meybaum teaches:
“as a/the watch party” (paragraph [0034]). [A given user notifies his or her friends (or other direct or indirect invitees) that the user is initiating a watch party with respect to the content of interest ([0034]).]
“transmitting, by the first client device, an indication of the option to join the virtual expo booth from the virtual interaction as the watch party” (paragraph [0025]). [The state transitions begin when the user joins the session; the system keeps track of the end users as the join and/or leave the collaboration session ([0025]).]
Both Boufarhat and Meybaum teach video systems t, and those systems are comparable to that of the instant application. Because the two cited references are analogous to the instant application, it 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, to include in the Boufarhat disclosure, the use of watch party format, as taught by Meybaum. Such inclusion would have provided for a format of group attendance and would have been consistent with the rationale of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results to show a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2143(I)(A)) under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The subject matter recited in Claims 2 and 12 which was not found in the prior art is as follows:
“presenting, by the first client device, a pop-up window comprising information about the second participant,” as recited in Claim 2 and
“present a pop-up window comprising information about the second participant,” as recited in Claim 12.
Because Claim 3 depends from Claim 2, it is also categorized in the same manner as Claim 2 as containing allowable subject matter from the prior art point of view.
The subject matter recited in Claims 4 and 13 which was not found in the prior art is as follows:
“presenting, by the first client device, a pop-up window comprising information about the second participant,” as recited in Claim 4 and
“present a pop-up window comprising information about the second participant,” as recited in Claim 14.
However, it should be noted that the above claims are not patentable, because they are rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and as being directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior art references listed on Form PTO-892 and not used in the prior art rejections are also relevant to this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHYLLIS A BOOK whose telephone number is (571)272-0698. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, GLENTON BURGESS can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/PHYLLIS A BOOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
1 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(January 7, 2019) (hereinafter "Revised Guidance")
(https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf)
Prosecution Insights