DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is responsive to the application filed June 25th, 2025. Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the limitations recite "the first electronic data" which lacks antecedent basis and should recite "the electronic data". Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 1: Independent claims 1 (method), 9 (system), and 17 (non-transitory computer-readable medium) and dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16, respectively, fall within at least one of the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101: (i) process; (ii) machine; (iii) manufacture; or (iv) composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e. process), claim 9 is directed to a system (i.e. machine), and claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A Prong 1: The independent claims recite managing online group engagement, comprising: creating an online group associated with a webinar responsive to an indication by one online user, wherein the online group includes a plurality of online users; sharing electronic data with the online group via a communication system; automatically and continuously monitoring, by the communication system, engagement activities of the plurality of online users associated with the electronic data; analyzing, using machine learning techniques, the monitored engagement activities to determine engagement levels of the plurality of online users with the electronic data, wherein the machine learning techniques evaluate historical engagement data to generate predicted engagement trends; identifying, using the machine learning techniques, members exhibiting anomalous engagement patterns compared to the predicted engagement trends, wherein known input data is used to gradually adjust a model to more accurately compute already known output, and once trained, field data is applied as input to generate the predicted engagement trends; displaying statistical data associated with the engagement levels in a graphical user interface (GUI); automatically modifying members of the online group to form an updated online group based on: the identified members exhibiting anomalous engagement patterns, and the predicted engagement trends, wherein the electronic data is more tailored and relevant to members of the updated online group in comparison to members of the online group (Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity & Mental Process), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05). [Examiner notes the underlined limitations above recite the abstract idea].
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity because the claims recite managing online group engagement by creating an online group associated with a webinar responsive to an indication by one online user, wherein the online group includes a plurality of online users; monitoring, engagement activities of the plurality of online users associated with the electronic data; analyzing, the monitored engagement activities to determine engagement levels of the plurality of online users with the electronic data; identifying, members exhibiting anomalous engagement patterns compared to the predicted engagement trends; modifying members of the online group to form an updated online group based on: the identified members exhibiting anomalous engagement patterns, and the predicted engagement trends, wherein the electronic data is more tailored and relevant to members of the updated online group in comparison to members of the online group, which is managing personal behavior, relationships, and interactions. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are managing online group engagement, which recite the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity.
The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims recite the abstract idea of Mental Process because the claims recite managing online group engagement by creating an online group associated with a webinar responsive to an indication by one online user, wherein the online group includes a plurality of online users; monitoring, engagement activities of the plurality of online users associated with the electronic data; analyzing, the monitored engagement activities to determine engagement levels of the plurality of online users with the electronic data; identifying, members exhibiting anomalous engagement patterns compared to the predicted engagement trends; modifying members of the online group to form an updated online group based on: the identified members exhibiting anomalous engagement patterns, and the predicted engagement trends, wherein the electronic data is more tailored and relevant to members of the updated online group in comparison to members of the online group, which are observations, judgments, evaluations, and opinions of the human mind. The Applicant’s claimed limitations are managing online group engagement, which recite the abstract idea of Mental Process.
In addition, dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16 further narrow the abstract idea and recite further defining the monitored engagement activities; the statistical data; determining a duration of time elapsed between the sharing of electronic data; defining a triggering event; identifying a subset of online users from the plurality of online users as key members associated with the electronic data; identifying a subset of online users from the plurality of online user to be removed from the online group; removing the subset of online users from the online group. These processes are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claims which recite a certain method of organizing human activity which include managing personal behavior, relationships, and interactions as well as mental processes. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they recite abstract ideas. Dependent claims 5 and 13 will be discussed in Prong 2 analysis below.
Step 2A Prong 2: In this application, the above “sharing electronic data with the online group via a communication system; displaying statistical data associated with the engagement levels in a graphical user interface (GUI)” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception. Also, the claimed “A computer; a communication system; a graphical user interface (GUI); A communication system for managing online group engagement, the communication system comprising: one or more hardware processors; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors of a communication system” would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recite the following limitation, “using machine learning techniques”; “wherein the machine learning techniques evaluate historical engagement data to generate predicted engagement trends”; “wherein known input data is used to gradually adjust a model to more accurately compute already known output, and once trained, field data is applied as input to generate the predicted engagement trends”. The “using machine learning techniques” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. These limitations would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
In addition, dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 4-5 and 12-13 additionally recite “displaying data associated with the duration of time elapsed between when the electronic data was shared and when the electronic data was accessed by each online user of the plurality of online users” and “transmitting a reminder signal to a subset of online users from the plurality of online users that have not accessed the first electronic data, wherein the reminder signal is transmitted in response to a triggering event” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because receiving/storing data and displaying data merely add insignificant extra-solution activity and the claimed “computer” and “hardware processors” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See PEG 2019 and MPEP 2106.05).
The claimed “A computer; a communication system; a graphical user interface (GUI); A communication system for managing online group engagement, the communication system comprising: one or more hardware processors; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors of a communication system” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See PEG 2019).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106.05 and PEG 2019). Further, method claims 1-8; system claims 9-16; and non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 17 recite “A computer; a communication system; a graphical user interface (GUI); A communication system for managing online group engagement, the communication system comprising: one or more hardware processors; A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors of a communication system”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs [0076-0083] and Figures 1A, 1B, and 12. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Also, the above “sharing electronic data with the online group via a communication system; displaying statistical data associated with the engagement levels in a graphical user interface (GUI)” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Next, when the “machine learning” is evaluated as an additional element, this feature is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses well-understood, routine, and conventional prior art activity. See, e.g., Balsiger et al., US 2012/0054642, noting in paragraph [0077] that “Machine learning is well known to those skilled in the art.” See also, Djordjevic et al. US 2013/0018651, noting in paragraph [0019] that “As known in the art, a generative model can be used in machine learning to model observed data directly.” See also, Bauer et al., US 2017/0147941, noting at paragraph [0002] that “Problems of understanding the behavior or decisions made by machine learning models have been recognized in the conventional art and various techniques have been developed to provide solutions.” Accordingly, the use of machine learning techniques to analyze engagement activity does not add significantly more to the claim.
In addition, claims 2-4, 6-8, 10-12, and 14-16 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 4-5 and 12-13 additionally recite “displaying data associated with the duration of time elapsed between when the electronic data was shared and when the electronic data was accessed by each online user of the plurality of online users” and “transmitting a reminder signal to a subset of online users from the plurality of online users that have not accessed the first electronic data, wherein the reminder signal is transmitted in response to a triggering event” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because receiving data and displaying/presenting data (See MPEP 2106.05) have been identified as well-known, routine, and conventional steps/functions to one of ordinary skill in the art and the claimed “computer” and “hardware processors” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tessler (U.S 2018/0165656 A1) in view of Rakshit (U.S 2020/0042947 A1).
Claims 1, 9, and 17
Regarding Claim 1, Tessler discloses the following:
A computer-implemented method for managing online group engagement, comprising [see at least Paragraph 0004 for reference to provide online meetings with dynamic customization capabilities such that the resulting meeting session can be adjusted and supplemented based on invitee inputs, along with adding pressure to the invitee to actually attend the meeting they have agreed to attend; Paragraph 0080 for reference to the presently disclosed meeting system and method automatically converts the interested individual who clicks on or otherwise interacts with an online advertisement into a scheduled sales meeting; Figure 7 and related text regarding a method of the current disclosure]
creating an online group associated with a webinar responsive to an indication by one online user, wherein the online group includes a plurality of online users [see at least Paragraph 0027 for reference to a meeting invitation being created for the host user by the scheduler; Paragraph 0028 for reference to scheduler should first create this meeting invitation for an online meeting session between, for example, the host user and at least one invitee; Paragraph 0028 for reference to a host user specifying a meeting time, meeting information/parameters, and meeting invitees; Paragraph 0083 for reference to a host or host user creating a meeting invitation; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 702 ‘Host creates Meeting Invitation’]
sharing electronic data with the online group via a communication system [see at least Paragraph 0021 for reference to invitee user interface layer may itself be used to transmit a meeting invitation, or may be linked to via an invitation conveyed by an external or third - party system or platform; Paragraph 0028 for reference to a host user specifying a meeting time, meeting information/parameters, and meeting invitees to thereby cause a scheduler to transmit a meeting invite containing a unique URL to each meeting invitee; Paragraph 0084 for reference to the meeting invites being transmitted to the one or more invitees selected by the host during the meeting invitation creation; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 704 ‘Transmit Meeting Invitation to Invitee(s)’]
automatically and continuously monitoring, by the communication system, engagement activities of the plurality of online users associated with the electronic data [see at least Paragraph 0038 for reference to the architecture including an engagement monitor system detecting whether or not a given invitee has engaged with the meeting invitation and determine the extent to which the given invitee has engaged with one or more of invitee user interface layer; Paragraph 0039 for reference to engagement monitor can determine whether or not the invitee browsed the availability data retrieved from calendar API of the host user, whether or not the invitee browsed the supplemental meeting options from service aggregator API, for how long the invitee browsed either of the above, and whether or not the invitee made any selections of the supplemental meeting options; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 124 ‘engagement monitor system’]
analyzing, the monitored engagement activities to determine engagement levels of the plurality of online users with the electronic data [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to the engagement monitor silently intercept and analyze communications and actions from the invitee; Paragraph 0041 for reference to can provide an analytics system, which is operative to analyze, either independently or in conjunction with engagement monitor, the performance of various meeting invitations transmitted by a given host user or a given collection of host users (e. g. a company's sales team, customer support, technical support, etc.); Figure 1 and related text regarding item 130 ‘analytics system’]
identifying, members exhibiting anomalous engagement patterns compared to the predicted engagement trends [see at least Paragraph 0038 for reference to engagement monitor can monitor whether or not the e-mail or online communication, and therefore meeting invitation, has been opened or viewed by the invitee; Paragraph 0040 for reference to if engagement monitor determines that meeting invitation has gone unopened for a week, then it can control scheduler to transmit a reminder message; Paragraph 0040 for reference to engagement monitor determines that the invitee has viewed the available supplemental meeting options but was unable to make a selection compatible with the parameters imposed by the host user (e. g. could not create a delivery order within the specified budget, could not find delivery restaurants open at the selected meeting time, etc.); Paragraph 0057 for reference to the invitation status can further include a time stamped log of all past engagement indicators for a given meeting invitation, e. g. the invitation status for a given meeting invitation can be expandable to indicate the time stamp at which all previous engagement indicators were achieved or marked by engagement monitor]
displaying statistical data associated with the engagement levels in a graphical user interface (GUI) [see at least Paragraph 0062 for reference to meeting invitation summary pane 626a presents various graphical representations of various levels of invitee engagement with the set of meeting invitations transmitted by the host user over the time frame specified via the time selection interface; Paragraph 0063 for reference to user - level analytics pane 630 allows the host user to analyze the response and engagement level of various invitees who have received one or more meeting invitations; Paragraph 0065 for reference to meeting invitation summary pane 626b pro vides a visualization of invitation statistics compiled into a single graph , which indicates a percentage of meeting invitations that were determined to have been ‘Held', 'Sent’, ‘Accepted', or ‘Canceled', although it is appreciated that other meeting invitation status identifiers can be employed without departing from the scope of the present disclosure; Figures 6A and 6B and related text regarding analytics user interface to display results and calculations from the analytics system]
automatically modifying members of the online group to form an updated online group based on: the identified members exhibiting anomalous engagement patterns, and the predicted engagement trends, wherein the electronic data is more tailored and relevant to members of the updated online group in comparison to members of the online group [see at least Paragraph 0088 for reference to a rescheduling process in response to lack of response over a predefined time period from a previously accepted invitee wherein the rescheduling includes creation of a new invite; Paragraph 0089 for reference to in response to the confirmation request, if a cancelation or no response is received, then the method returns to the rescheduling block; Figure 7 and related text regarding item 712 ‘Reschedule’]
While Tessler discloses the limitations above, it does not disclose analyzing, using machine learning techniques, the monitored engagement activities to determine engagement levels of the plurality of online users with the electronic data, wherein the machine learning techniques evaluate historical engagement data to generate predicted engagement trends or identifying, using the machine learning techniques, members exhibiting anomalous engagement patterns compared to the predicted engagement trends, wherein known input data is used to gradually adjust a model to more accurately compute already known output, and once trained, field data is applied as input to generate the predicted engagement trends.
However, Rakshit discloses the following:
analyzing, using machine learning techniques, the monitored engagement activities to determine engagement levels of the plurality of online users with the electronic data, wherein the machine learning techniques evaluate historical engagement data to generate predicted engagement trends [see at least Paragraph 0061 for reference to cognitive engine may include historical data ( e.g., event/meeting history), feedback component (e.g., In prior meeting feedback), one or more action rules; Paragraph 0070 for reference to the cognitive engine may use data relating to meeting history, prior meeting feedback, and/or one or more action rules for determining the one or more parameters for a meeting and schedule; Paragraph 0077 for reference to the cognitive component and/or the cognitive component may perform one or more machine learning operation and learn information based on feedback from invitees and participants; Paragraph 0078 for reference to cognitive computing system may store the feedback information in the database and may use the feedback data to learn, adjust, or provide increase accuracy sending the event invite or scheduling a meeting assignment; Paragraph 0083 for reference to the cognitive computing system analyzing historical information on attending meetings and interaction of each of the participants; Figure 6 and related text regarding item 614 ‘INITIALIZE A MACHINE LEARNING MECHANISM TO ADJUST ONE OR MORE EVENT PARAMETERS, RESCHEDULE THE EVENT, FORECAST ONE OR MORE FUTURE EVENTS, AND LEARN SCHEDULING CONFLICTS, A LEVEL OF INTEREST OF A TOPIC OR THE EVENT, ONE OR MORE PARAMETERS RELATING TO THE EVENT’]
identifying, using the machine learning techniques, members exhibiting anomalous engagement patterns compared to the predicted engagement trends, wherein known input data is used to gradually adjust a model to more accurately compute already known output, and once trained, field data is applied as input to generate the predicted engagement trends [see at least Paragraph 0078 for reference to cognitive computing system may store the feedback information in the database and may use the feedback data to learn, adjust, or provide increase accuracy sending the event invite or scheduling a meeting assignment; Paragraph 0079 for reference to cognitive component and/or the cognitive component may learn, re - evaluate, update, and/or reschedule a scheduled meeting and based on current learning, to any of the meeting parameters]
automatically modifying members of the online group to form an updated online group based on: the identified members exhibiting anomalous engagement patterns, and the predicted engagement trends, wherein the electronic data is more tailored and relevant to members of the updated online group in comparison to members of the online group [see at least Paragraph 0079 for reference to the cognitive component and/or the cognitive component may update a scheduled Meeting wherein cognitive component and/or the cognitive component may learn, re - evaluate, update, and/or reschedule a scheduled meeting and based on current learning, to any of the meeting parameters; Paragraph 0082 for reference to the cognitive computing system, which may use the cognitive component and/or the cognitive component, may analyze various information to finalize an invitee list (e.g., a chair - person, presenter, attendee, etc.) based on a threshold limit of predicted attendance score]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the analysis of Tessler to include the machine learning techniques of Rakshit. Doing so would increase the accuracy of meeting identification, meeting assignment, scheduling, and/ or determining the parameters of the meeting and schedule, as stated by Rakshit (Paragraph 0078).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the claims recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 9, Tessler teaches a communication system comprising one or more hardware processors [Paragraphs 0019, 0022, & Figures 1, 8A, & 8B]. Regarding claim 17, Tessler teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors of a communication system [Paragraph 0096 and 0102]. Therefore, claims 9 and 17 are rejected as being unpatentable over the combination of Tessler and Rakshit.
Claims 2 and 10
While the combination of Tessler and Rakshit disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 2, Tessler discloses the following:
wherein the engagement activities being monitored include at least one or more of: pins associated with the electronic data, copy/paste operations associated with the electronic data, accesses to a uniform resource locator (URL) associated with the electronic data, accesses to a proxy URL associated with the electronic data, emails that include content associated with the electronic data, voice calls associated with the electronic data, and video conferences associated with the electronic data [see at least Paragraph 0039 for reference to engagement monitor can determine whether or not the invitee browsed the availability data retrieved from calendar API of the host user, whether or not the invitee browsed the supplemental meeting options from service aggregator API, for how long the invitee browsed either of the above, and whether or not the invitee made any selections of the supplemental meeting options; Paragraph 0038 for reference to engagement monitor can monitor whether or not the e-mail or online communication, and therefore meeting invitation, has been opened or viewed by the invitee; Figure 1 and related text regarding item 124 ‘engagement monitor system’]
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3 and 11
While the combination of Tessler and Rakshit disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 3, Tessler discloses the following:
wherein the statistical data includes a number of online users of the plurality of online users that have accessed the first electronic data [see at least Paragraph 0038 for reference to engagement monitor can monitor whether or not the e-mail or online communication, and therefore meeting invitation, has been opened or viewed by the invitee; Paragraph 0060 for reference to summary statistics include a number and percentage of unsuccessfully transmitted invitations, a number and percentage of invitations in which the invitation message has been opened, a number and percentage of invitations in which invitee user interface and/or scheduler have been pinged, a number and percentage of invitations in which a meeting has been scheduled, a number and percentage of invitations in which a meeting has been successfully held, a number and percentage of invitations in which the invitee has declined, etc.]
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4 and 12
While the combination of Tessler and Rakshit disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 4, Tessler discloses the following:
determining a duration of time elapsed between when the electronic data was shared and when the electronic data was accessed by each online user of the plurality of online users [see at least Paragraph 0057 for reference to the invitation status can further include a time stamped log of all past engagement indicators for a given meeting invitation, e. g. the invitation status for a given meeting invitation can be expandable to indicate the time stamp at which all previous engagement indicators were achieved or marked by engagement monitor; Paragraph 0070 for reference to the response time chart providing an analysis of the average or median time elapsed for different responses to be achieved during the time period specified]
displaying data associated with the duration of time elapsed between when the electronic data was shared and when the electronic data was accessed by each online user of the plurality of online users [see at least Paragraph 0057 for reference to the invitation status can further include a time stamped log of all past engagement indicators for a given meeting invitation, e. g. the invitation status for a given meeting invitation can be expandable to indicate the time stamp at which all previous engagement indicators were achieved or marked by engagement monitor; Paragraph 0070 for reference to the response time chart providing an analysis of the average or median time elapsed for different responses to be achieved during the time period specified; Figure 4 and related text regarding item 424 ‘invitation status’; Figure 6B and related text regarding item 658 ‘Response Time Chart’]
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5 and 13
While the combination of Tessler and Rakshit disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 5, Tessler discloses the following:
transmitting a reminder signal to a subset of online users from the plurality of online users that have not accessed the first electronic data, wherein the reminder signal is transmitted in response to a triggering event [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to if engagement monitor determines that meeting invitation has gone unopened for a week, then it can control scheduler to transmit a reminder message, which contains a new copy of the meeting invitation; Paragraph 0040 for reference to engagement monitor determines that meeting invitation has been opened, but that the invitee has not viewed available times or available supplemental meeting options, then it can control scheduler to transmit a reminder message requesting that the user view available meeting times and available supplemental meeting options]
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6 and 14
While the combination of Tessler and Rakshit disclose the limitations above, regarding Claim 6, Tessler discloses the following:
wherein the triggering event is a level of importance of the electronic data, wherein the level of importance is determined based on weighted factors associated with a plurality of different activities performed by the plurality of online users with respect to the electronic data or based on a number of times that the electronic data has been accessed being greater than a threshold value [see at least Paragraph 0040 for reference to if engagement monitor determines that meeting invitation has gone unopened for a week, then it can control scheduler to transmit a reminder message, which contains a new copy of the meeting invitation; Paragraph 0040 for reference to engagement monitor determines that meeting invitation has been opened, but that the invitee has not viewed available times or available supplemental meeting options, then it can control scheduler to transmit a reminder message requesting that the user view available meeting times and available supplemental meeting options; Paragraph 0066 for reference to tracker 640 can be provided to quickly provide an indication of a host user's meeting invitation performance, as quantified by the most important, or most immediately understandable, numbers, shown here as budget used vs. total budget, total invitations sent, total invitations accepted, and total number of prospects]
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 15
While the combination of Tessler and Rakshit discloses the limitations above, Tessler does not disclose identifying a subset of online users from the plurality of online users as key members associated with the electronic data based on a weighted factor associated with a content of the electronic data, assignment associated with online users of the plurality of online users as designated by a creator of the online group, and organizational relationship of plurality of online users to the creator of the group
Regarding Claim 7, Rakshit discloses the following:
identifying a subset of online users from the plurality of online users as key members associated with the electronic data based on a weighted factor associated with a content of the electronic data, assignment associated with online users of the plurality of online users as designated by a creator of the online group, and organizational relationship of plurality of online users to the creator of the group [see at least Paragraph 0081 for reference to one or more potential candidates who attending the event/meeting, while considering both mandatory and optional participants; Paragraph 0087 for reference to group the participants based on a) a similar knowledge level, prerequisites, and/or prior information of the of the participants, etc.; Paragraph 0092 for reference to one or more participants may be clustered (e.g., clustered into one or more groups) according to calendar schedule availability, a degree of interest in a topic of the data content, a knowledge level, a priority level, a type of the event, or a combination thereof]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the group determination of Tessler to include the identification of key members of Rakshit. Doing so would increase the accuracy of meeting identification, meeting assignment, scheduling, and/ or determining the parameters of the meeting and schedule, as stated by Rakshit (Paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 8 and 16
While the combination of Tessler and Rakshit discloses the limitations above, Tessler does not disclose wherein automatically modifying members of the online group to form the updated online group, comprises: identifying a subset of online users from the plurality of online users to be removed from the online group based on the identified members exhibiting the anomalous engagement patterns and the predicted engagement trends; and removing the subset of online users from the online group.
Regarding Claim 8, Rakshit discloses the following:
wherein automatically modifying members of the online group to form the updated online group, comprises: identifying a subset of online users from the plurality of online users to be removed from the online group based on the identified members exhibiting the anomalous engagement patterns and the predicted engagement trends; and removing the subset of online users from the online group [see at least Paragraph 0079 for reference to the cognitive component and/or the cognitive component may update a scheduled Meeting wherein cognitive component and/or the cognitive component may learn, re - evaluate, update, and/or reschedule a scheduled meeting and based on current learning, to any of the meeting parameters; Paragraph 0082 for reference to the cognitive computing system, which may use the cognitive component and/or the cognitive component, may analyze various information to finalize an invitee list (e.g., a chair - person, presenter, attendee, etc.) based on a threshold limit of predicted attendance score]
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the group determination of Tessler to include the modification of members of Rakshit. Doing so would increase the accuracy of meeting identification, meeting assignment, scheduling, and/ or determining the parameters of the meeting and schedule, as stated by Rakshit (Paragraph 0078).
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ai, Chunyu, Wei Zhong, and Longjiang Guo. "Reinforcement Learning Based Group Event Invitation Algorithm." International Conference on Wireless Algorithms, Systems, and Applications. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020.
DOCUMENT ID
INVENTOR(S)
TITLE
US 2020/0410453 A1
Nalliah et al.
INTELLIGENT MEETING INSIGHTS
US 2014/0164525 A1
Malik et al.
EVENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
EP 1394713 A1
Zaner et al.
System And Method For Shared Integrated Online Social Interaction
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTIN ELIZABETH GAVIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/KRISTIN E GAVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights