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
This responds to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed 07/01/2026. Claims 1-21 are now pending in this Application.
Double Patenting
Terminal Disclaimer filed on June 29, 2026, has been approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The claims have not been amended and continue to recite:
Step 2A, Prong One
an audio recording file of at least a portion of the video conference; a video recording file of at least a portion of the video conference; and a document file shared in an original file type during the video conference; generating a package file comprising the plurality of conference files;
saving the package file to a package file database; processing the package file to generate a derivative conference file; generating an item file comprising the derivative conference file; and saving the item file to an item file database, the item file further comprising a link to the package file saved on the package file database.
The additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely “Receiving a plurality of conference, generating a package, saving a package, saving item file may be characterized as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer”.
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Accordingly, the rejection of the under 35 USC § 101 is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The term “means” or “step” is a generic nonce term that does not, by itself, connote sufficiently definite structure to one or ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the limitation is properly interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and the rejection is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Mackell does not disclose “a document file shared in an original file type during the video conference”.
In response to applicant argument, the examiner submits that Mackell discloses “a system that supports online meetings such as video meetings/conferences (as well as sharing or exchange of content) between attendees at meeting endpoints is depicted in the schematic diagram. As used herein, the term “online meeting” or “online meeting session” or “online conference” refers to a communication between at least two meeting endpoints that can include audio and/or video content (e.g., a meeting where video images of attendees at different meeting endpoints are captured (i.e., obtained and recorded) and provided to other attendee devices as part of the communication) as well as the sharing of other content (e.g., sharing of files or documents, such as word processing documents, spreadsheet documents, slide presentations, etc., sharing of images and the sharing of any other types of content). In an online meeting session, an attendee at a meeting endpoint may be designated as a speaker or presenter of content, and the speaker or presenter designation can change throughout the online meeting (par [0015]).
a system 2 comprises a network 10 that facilitates communications and exchange of communications (e.g., audio and/or video), such as online video meetings, and sharing of content (e.g., sharing of documents or files, images, video, etc.) between any number of meeting endpoints 20, 30 via at least one host server device 50. The number of meeting endpoints 20, 30 and the single host server device 50 depicted in FIG. 1 is provided for example purposes only, and it is noted that the network 10 can support communications and sharing of content between any suitable number of endpoints of various types hosted by any suitable number of server devices (e.g., one or more host server devices). Examples of types of networks that can be utilized within system 2 include, without limitation, any one or more of local or wide area networks, Internet Protocol (IP) networks such as intranet or internet networks, telephone networks (e.g., public switched telephone networks), wireless or mobile phone or cellular networks, and any suitable combinations thereof (par [0016]). Therefore, Mackell discloses this limitation.
Applicant argues that Udezue does not disclose “generating an item file comprising the derivative conference file; and saving the item file to an item file database, the item file further comprising a link to the package file saved on the package file database”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the examiner submits that according to the Decision on Appeal mailed on March 27, 2024, in parent Application No. 17/645,832, the rejection was affirmed. Guo and Udezue disclose the limitation of claims 1-21 except for the limitation “a document file shared in an original file type during the video conference”. However, Mackell discloses this limitation (see the response to argument above).
Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 11-12, 15-18, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (U.S. Pub No. 2014/0118471 A1), and Udezue et al (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0073640), and further in view of Mackell et al (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0344278 A1).
As per claim 1, Guo discloses a method for facilitating collaboration utilizing video conferencing comprising:
receiving a plurality of conference files related to a video conference, the plurality of conference files comprising: an audio recording file of at least a portion of the video conference (Par [0016-0017, 0047, 0067]);
a video recording file of at least a portion of the video conference (Par [0039-0040]); and
generating a package file comprising the plurality of conference files; saving the package file to a package file database (par [0047]);
processing the package file to generate a derivative conference file (par 0047, 0050]).
Gou does not explicitly disclose generating an item file comprising the derivative conference file; and saving the item file to an item file database, the item file further comprising a link to the package file saved on the package file database.
However, Udezue discloses generating an item file comprising the derivative conference file; and saving the item file to an item file database, the item file further comprising a link to the package file saved on the package file database (Par [0024-0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Udezue into the teaching of Guo in order to improve computer system (Par [0002]).
Udezue discloses a document file shared during the video conference. Guo and Udzue do not explicitly disclose a document file shared in an original file type during the video conference.
However, Mackell discloses a document file shared in an original file type during the video conference (Par [0015, 0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Mackell into the teaching of Guo as modified by Udezue in order to maintain an accuracy (Par [0014]).
As per claim 2, Guo discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the audio recording file and the video recording file of the video conference are received as a single file (Par [0047]).
As per claim 4, Udezue discloses the method of claim 1 wherein the derivative conference file is at least one of a transcript of the audio recording file, a task, an action item, a calendar event, and an annotation (Par [0024]).
As per claim 7, Udezue discloses the method of claim 1 wherein: the derivative conference file is one of a task, an action item, a calendar event, and an annotation; and the derivative conference file further comprises metadata comprising a link to a user record stored on a user record database (par [0024]).
As per claim 11, Guo discloses a computer system for facilitating collaboration utilizing video conferencing comprising:
a network communication device operable to: connect to a computer network (Par [0003]),
receive a plurality of conference files related to a video conference, the plurality of conference files comprising: an audio recording file of at least a portion of the video conference (Par [0016-0017, 0047, 0067]),
a video recording file of at least a portion of the video conference (Par [0039, 0040]), and
a processor operable connected to the network communication device; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium positioned in communication with the processor and the network communication device and comprising software stored thereon that, when executed by the software, is operable to (Par [0044, 0047]):
save the package file to a package file database; process the package file to generate a derivative conference file (Par [0047, 0050]).
Guo does not explicitly disclose generate a package file comprising the plurality of conference files; generate an item file comprising the derivative conference file; and save the item file to an item file database, the item file further comprising a link to the package file saved on the package file database.
However, Udezue discloses generate a package file comprising the plurality of conference files; generate an item file comprising the derivative conference file; and save the item file to an item file database, the item file further comprising a link to the package file saved on the package file database (Par [0024-0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Udezue into the teaching of Guo in order to improve computer system (Par [0002]).
Udezue discloses a document file shared during the video conference. Guo and Udzue do not explicitly disclose a document file shared in an original file type during the video conference.
However, Mackell discloses a document file shared during the video conference (Par [0015, 0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Mackell into the teaching of Guo as modified by Udezue in order to maintain an accuracy (Par [0014]).
As per claim 12, Guo discloses the computer system of claim 11 wherein the audio recording file and the video recording file of the video conference are received as a single file (Par [0047]).
As per claim 15, Guo discloses the computer system of claim 11 wherein the derivative conference file is at least one of visually displayed on a display of the user device and audibly played on an audio device of the user device (Par [0035-0036]).
As per claim 16, Udezue discloses the computer system of claim 11 wherein: the processor is further operable to process the package file to generate a plurality of derivative conference files; the item file comprises two or more derivative conference files of the plurality of derivative conference files, the item file comprising a transcript and another derivative conference file other than the transcript, defining a second derivative conference file; the transcript comprises an indication of when during the video conference the content giving rise to the second derivative conference file occurred; and each of the transcript and the second derivative conference are represented on the user device (Par [0024, 0041]).
As per claim 17, Udezue discloses the computer system of claim 11 wherein the derivative conference file is at least one of a transcript of the audio recording file, a task, an action item, a calendar event, and an annotation (Par [0024]).
As per claim 20, Udezue discloses the computer system of claim 11 wherein: the derivative conference file is one of a task, an action item, a calendar event, and an annotation; and the derivative conference file further comprises metadata comprising a link to a user record stored on a user record database (Par [0024-0025]).
As per claim 21, Guo discloses a system for facilitating collaboration utilizing video conferencing comprising:
means for receiving a plurality of conference files related to a video conference, the plurality of conference files comprising: an audio recording file of at least a portion of the video conference (Par [0016-0017, 0047, 0067]);
a video recording file of at least a portion of the video conference (Par [0039-0040]); and
means for generating a package file comprising the plurality of conference files; saving the package file to a package file database (par [0047]);
means for processing the package file to generate a derivative conference file (par 0047, 0050]).
Guo does not explicitly disclose means for generating an item file comprising the derivative conference file; and means for saving the item file to an item file database, the item file further comprising a link to the package file saved on the package file database.
However, Udezue discloses means for generating an item file comprising the derivative conference file; and means for saving the item file to an item file database, the item file further comprising a link to the package file saved on the package file database (Par [0024-0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Udezue into the teaching of Guo in order to improve computer system (Par [0002]).
Udezue discloses a document file shared during the video conference. Gou and Udzue do not explicitly disclose a document file shared in an original file type during the video conference.
However, Mackell discloses a document file shared during the video conference (Par [0015, 0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Mackell into the teaching of Guo as modified by Udezue in order to maintain an accuracy (Par [0014]).
Claim(s) 3, 6, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (U.S. Pub No. 2014/0118471 A1), and Udezue et al (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0073640), and Mackell et al (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0344278 A1), and further in view of Nakamura et al (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0112440 A1).
As per claim 3, Guo, Udezue and Mackell do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 1 further comprising: hashing the package file, generating a package file hash value; and one of recording the package file hash value to a smart contract deployed on a blockchain network and recording the package file hash value as extra data on a transaction sent to the blockchain.
However, Nakamura discloses hashing the package file, generating a package file hash value; and one of recording the package file hash value to a smart contract deployed on a blockchain network and recording the package file hash value as extra data on a transaction sent to the blockchain (par [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Nakamura into the teaching of Guo as modified by Udezua and Mackell in order to protect data (par [0034]).
As per claim 6, Nakamura discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: hashing the item file, generating an item file hash value; and one of recording the item file hash value to a smart contract deployed on a blockchain network and recording the item file hash value as extra data on a transaction sent to the blockchain (par [0070]).
As per claim 13, Guo, Udezue and Mackell do not explicitly disclose the computer system of claim 11 wherein: the software, when executed by the processor, is further operable to: hash the package file, generating a package file hash value; and one of record the package file hash value to a smart contract that is deployable on a blockchain network and record the package file hash value as extra data on a blockchain network transaction; and the network communication device is further operable to one of transmit the smart contract for deployment on the blockchain network and transmit the transaction to the blockchain network.
However, Nakamura discloses the software, when executed by the processor, is further operable to: hash the package file, generating a package file hash value; and one of record the package file hash value to a smart contract that is deployable on a blockchain network and record the package file hash value as extra data on a blockchain network transaction; and the network communication device is further operable to one of transmit the smart contract for deployment on the blockchain network and transmit the transaction to the blockchain network (Par [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Nakamura into the teaching of Guo as modified by Udezua and Mackell in order to protect data (par [0034]).
As per claim 19, Guo, Udezue and Mackell do not explicitly disclose the computer system of claim 11 wherein:
the processor is further operable to: hash the item file, generating an item file hash value; and
one of record the item file hash value to a smart contract that is deployable on a blockchain network and record the item file hash value as extra data on a blockchain network transaction; and the network communication device is further operable to one of transmit the smart contract for deployment on the blockchain network and transmit the transaction to the blockchain network.
However, Nakamura discloses the processor is further operable to: hash the item file, generating an item file hash value; and one of record the item file hash value to a smart contract that is deployable on a blockchain network and record the item file hash value as extra data on a blockchain network transaction; and the network communication device is further operable to one of transmit the smart contract for deployment on the blockchain network and transmit the transaction to the blockchain network (Par [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Nakamura into the teaching of Guo as modified by Udezua and Mackell in order to protect data (par [0034]).
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (U.S. Pub No. 2014/0118471 A1), and Udezue et al (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0073640), and Mackell et al (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0344278 A1), and further in view of Xu (U.S. Pub No. 2011/0231382 A1).
As per claim 5, Guo discloses the method of claim 1 wherein: the document file is a document saved to a document database (Par [0062]).
Guo, Udezue and Mackell do not explicitly disclose the derivative conference file is an annotation associated with the document file; and the annotation is saved to a metadata database comprising metadata associated with documents stored on the document database.
However, Xu discloses the derivative conference file is an annotation associated with the document file; and the annotation is saved to a metadata database comprising metadata associated with documents stored on the document database (par [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Xu into the teaching of Guo as modified by Udezua and Mackell in order to identify and quantity the significant of entities (Par [0002]).
As per claim 18, Guo discloses the computer system of claim 11 wherein: the document file is a document saved to a document database (Par [0062]).
Guo, Udezue and Mackell do not explicitly disclose the derivative conference file is an annotation associated with the document file; and the annotation is saved to a metadata database comprising metadata associated with documents stored on the document database.
However, Xu discloses the derivative conference file is an annotation associated with the document file; and the annotation is saved to a metadata database comprising metadata associated with documents stored on the document database (par [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Xu into the teaching of Guo as modified by Udezua and Mackell in order to identify and quantity the significant of entities (Par [0002]).
Claim(s) 8-10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (U.S. Pub No. 2014/0118471 A1), and Udezue et al (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0073640), and Mackell et al (U.S. Pub No. 2020/0344278 A1), and further in view of Rust (U.S. Patent No. 7,908,321).
As per claim 8, Udezue discloses the method of claim 1 wherein: the item file comprises a timestamp indicating a time in at least one of the audio recording file and the video recording file with which the item file is associated, defining a related item time; and the method further comprises (par [0022]).
Guo, Udezue and Mackell do not explicitly disclose receiving a replay request from a user device, the replay request comprising a link to the package file; transmitting at least one of the audio recording file and the video recording file for playback on the user device; and transmitting the item file to the user device such that the derivative conference file is represented on the user device at the related item time.
However, Rust discloses receiving a replay request from a user device, the replay request comprising a link to the package file; transmitting at least one of the audio recording file and the video recording file for playback on the user device; and transmitting the item file to the user device such that the derivative conference file is represented on the user device at the related item time (Col 6 lines 37-61, and claims 2, 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Rust into the teaching of Guo as modified by Udezua and Mackell in order to provide easy to use and cost effective (Col 2 lines 62-63).
As per claim 9, Guo discloses the method of claim 8 wherein the derivative conference file is at least one of visually displayed on a display of the user device and audibly played on an audio device of the user device (Par [0035-0036]).
As per claim 10, Udezue discloses the method of claim 8 wherein: processing the package file generates a plurality of derivative conference file; the item file comprises two or more derivative conference files of the plurality of derivative conference files, the item file comprising a transcript and another derivative conference file other than the transcript, defining a second derivative conference file; the transcript comprises an indication of when during the video conference the content giving rise to the second derivative conference file occurred; and each of the transcript and the second derivative conference are represented on the user device (Par [0024, 0041]).
As per claim 14, Udezue discloses the computer system of claim 11 wherein: the item file comprises a timestamp indicating a time in at least one of the audio recording file and the video recording file with which the item file is associated, defining a related item time; and the network communication device is further operable to (Par [0022]):
Guo, Udezue and Mackell do not explicitly disclose receive a replay request from a user device, the replay request comprising a link to the package file; transmit at least one of the audio recording file and the video recording file for playback on the user device; and transmit the item file to the user device such that the derivative conference file is represented on the user device at the related item time.
However, Rust discloses receive a replay request from a user device, the replay request comprising a link to the package file; transmit at least one of the audio recording file and the video recording file for playback on the user device; and transmit the item file to the user device such that the derivative conference file is represented on the user device at the related item time (Col 6 lines 37-61, and claims 2, 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Rust into the teaching of Guo as modified by Udezua and Mackell in order to provide easy to use and cost effective (Col 2 lines 62-63).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
July 21, 2026
/THU N NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights