structured meetings

Invention Disclosure

Our client Thomas A. Jaffee wanted to file a patent related to software for facilitating structured meetings between two or more persons. The software relates to a platform for online meetings. The software patent was filed when the Alice Corp. v CLS Bank case was its peak and achieving a software patent was too tough.

Wissen research patent analyst and drafting team helped him in patentability search, patent drafting, patent drawings and filing of the patent application. We first discussed the prior-art results with the client and believed to have a strong case for the grant of the patent application. The application was prepared and filed successfully. There were multiple rejections and we stood with the client all times and explained the examiner with the rules set under Alice copper case.

Finally we managed to grant the patent application in 2016-08-09 and overcome the rejections of USC 101* and USC 103*


A framework for encouraging sorted out and organized gatherings of at least one client through a server. The framework incorporates a processor and a memory unit. The memory unit stores information identified with the task of gatherings and the processor is operable to process an enlistment module for clients, an occasion setup module for setting up an occasion, a meeting demand module for sending meeting demands, and a meeting task module. The occasion setup module enables the client to set up an occasion and further permits making of at least one sessions and rundown of classifications for every session, moreover to make rules in view of the classes and after that dole out areas and timetable for every session. The meeting demand module to permit accommodation of demand for gatherings amid the session. The meeting task module to dole out gatherings between two enrolled clients on the premise of the principles submitted under meeting demand module.

*USC 101: Inventions Patentable

35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of the claims arguing –the claims are drawn to an abstract idea”.

A rejection on the grounds that “claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea”.

USC 103: Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

A patent for a guaranteed creation may not be gotten, despite that the asserted innovation isn’t indistinguishably uncovered as put forward in segment 102, if the contrasts between the asserted development and the earlier craftsmanship are to such an extent that the guaranteed development in general would have been evident before the compelling recording date of the guaranteed creation to a man having standard ability in the workmanship to which the guaranteed development relates. Patentability might not be invalidated by the way in which the innovation was made.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *