DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 16/543,585, filed on August 18, 2019. In response to the Non-Final Office Action dated August 07, 2025, Applicant on November 06, 2025, amended claims 14, 19 and 22. Claims 14-16 and 19-22 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections of claims 14-16 and 19-22, are hereby withdrawn pursuant to Applicant’s amendments to claims 14 and 19.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed November 06, 2025 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed November 06, 2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the Non-Final Office Action indicates under "Step 2A - Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea." Specifically, the Non-Final Office indicates the embodiments are directed towards, "certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes." This is respectfully controverted by Applicant, at least because of Applicant's current amendments. Recently, on August 4, 2025, a memorandum has been issued entitled "Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C 101" (hereinafter, the "AUGUST 4, 2025 MEMO") which supports Applicant's view that embodiments described in claims 14 and 19 are patentable subject-matter (see p. 8, Applicant Remarks).
In a similar fashion to portions of the AUGUST 4, 2025 MEMO, it is respectfully submitted that the steps associated with Applicant's claims 14 and 19 cannot practically be performed as "mental processes." Applicant's claims, for example, recite (inter alia):
- calculating on demand in an internet calendaring system executing in memory by a processor of a computer one or more event instances for a recurring event based on a recurrence rule, the internet calendaring system implemented in iCalendar…
- applying modifications to the one or more event instances concurrently when calculating on demand one or more event instances for the recurring event based on the recurrence rule.
It is respectfully submitted therefore that the assertion in the Non-Final Office Action that, "there is nothing in the claims that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper" is also incorrect. The claims are directed to, "calculating on demand in an internet calendaring system executing in memory by a processor of a computer one or more event instances for a recurring event based on a recurrence rule, the internet calendaring system implemented in iCalendar... ." Humans do not "mentally or with pen and paper" perform these steps. A "calendaring application implemented in iCalendar" performs them, as is indicated in Applicant's claims.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds even in a computer environment, these limitations are still considered abstract by reciting limitations that mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluations, judgement and opinion, that can feasibly be performed with pen and paper, where the data interpretation is perceptible in the human mind. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). As stated in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the recitation of the additional elements do not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Examiner finds the pending claims recite similar limitations to claims the courts have indicated may not be sufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality, such as accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states Applicant currently amends claims 14 and 19, to indicate these embodiments are directed towards the "practical application" of "conserv[ing] computer storage space in a groupware-oriented calendaring application based upon a distributed computing model...." The AUGUST 4, 2025 MEMO clarifies, more specifically, that "[t]his consideration has been referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem." In short, as one of skill in the art would understand, storing recurring calendar objects which continue indefinitely in an electronic calendar would take an infinite amount of storage space if stored individually, hence embodiments of the invention disclose herein solve this technical problem by storing, "one or more event instances for a recurring event based on a recurrence rule.. ." and, "calculating on demand one or more event instances for the recurring event based on the recurrence rule." Further details regarding the "practical application" are contained in Applicant's embodiments discussed herein.
Very recently, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has designated an opinion as precedential which clearly indicates that minimizing usage of "storage capacity" supports a finding of an improvement in a computer technology. In Ex Parte DesJardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (September 25, 2025) the PTAB indicates that "reducing storage requirements" in a software-type invention may be an "improvement" indicating patentable subject-matter. Id. at 7, 9.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards Ex parte Desjardins, Examiner notes the decision is also consistent with existing UPSTO guidance and is not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedures. Examiner finds Applicants arguments in relation to this matter are not persuasive. Specifically, in Ex Parte Desjardins, the specification identified the improvement to machine learning technology by explaining how the machine learning model is trained to learn new tasks while protecting knowledge about previous tasks to overcome the problem of “catastrophic forgetting”, and that the claims reflected the improvement identified in the specification. The improvements identified in the Desjardins specification included disclosures of the effective learning of new tasks in succession in connection with specifically protecting knowledge concerning previously accomplished tasks; allowing the system to reduce use of storage capacity; and the enablement of reduced complexity in the system. Such improvements were tantamount to how the machine learning model itself would function in operation and therefore not subsumed in the identified mathematical calculation. Examiner finds no similar improvements to take into consideration here. "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Examiner finds Applicants have not identified any disclosure in the claimed invention that shows or even submits the technology is being improved or there was a problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves. Thus, Examiner maintains the claims recite additional elements used as tools to perform the instructions of the abstract idea without disclosing limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states under Step 2B, it is respectfully submitted that in any event, Applicant's claims, "recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception." MPEP 2016.05 clarifies that this is directed towards a "search for an inventive concept." Applicant's "inventive concept" is, as restated in Applicant's claims 14 and 19 is (at least-in part) is generally to, "applying ordered modifications to recurring event instances to conserve computer storage space in a groupware- oriented calendaring application implemented in iCalendar, the groupware-oriented calendaring application to provide for interoperability between dissimilar calendaring and scheduling applications... ." See Applicant's Specification at Para. [0001] et seq.
First, please note that embodiments of Applicant's invention (as discussed heavily in Applicant's Specification), embodiments are generally directed to an improvement in "Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object Specification." See Applicant's Specification at Paras. [0004], [0006], [0010], etc. and Request for Comments: 2445, "Internet Calendaring and Scheduling Core Object Specification (iCalendar)[.]"
See e.g. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2445 (last visited November 5, 2025).
Applicant's Specification provides more details regarding the background and improvements, and interactions with Request for Comments 2445. By non-limiting example, further discussion of the "inventive concept" is provided, by non-limiting example, in Paras. [0001]-[0006]... etc. (see p. 11-13, Applicant Remarks).
For these reasons, it is respectfully submitted to Examiner that Applicant’s claims 14 and 19 and all claims depending upon these qualify as patentable subject-matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and these rejections should be withdrawn.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds taking the additional elements separately and as an ordered combination, the functions performed by the computer at each step is purely conventional. The sequence of the data reception-analysis (calculating/specifying/applying) and storing is generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission was abstract), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was abstract). Applicant merely restates the claim language with reference to the description of the related art portion of the specification, combined with a blanket statement that the methods provide an inventive concept. The claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The Specification discloses different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of information access under different scenarios (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 15-16, Fig. 1) Examiner maintains the additional elements recited in the claims do not perform any unconventional functions that can be considered “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Therefore, Examiner maintains the claims recite additional elements that provide no meaningful limitations that transforms the judicial exception into significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For at least these reasons, the pending claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 14-16 and 22 are directed towards a method and claims 19-21 are directed towards a non-transitory machine readable storage medium, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 14-16 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite scheduling recurring events on a calendar.
Claim 14 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, calculating on demand, one or more event instances for a recurring event based on a recurrence rule, the single event recurring based upon the recurrence rule; specifying separately from the one or more event instances stored as the single event one or more specific event properties as modification rules which cause modifications to the one or more event instances; and concurrently applying modifications to the one or more event instances concurrently when calculating on demand one or more event instances for the recurring event based on the recurrence rule constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), as well as methods that mimic human thought processes of selecting certain information over other information, i.e., evaluation and creating steps that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of a groupware-oriented calendaring application implemented in iCalendar and internet calendaring system executing in memory by a processor of a computer does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 19 recites certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes for similar reasons as claim 14.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the storing limitations recited in claim 14 are considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 14 recites a groupware-oriented calendaring application implemented in iCalendar, and internet calendaring system executing in memory by a processor of a computer at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 14 is directed to an abstract idea. The non-transitory machine readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising a routine set of instructions executable by a machine and internet calendaring system executing in memory by a processor of a computer recited in claim 19 also amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claim 19 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 14.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including g groupware-oriented calendaring application implemented in iCalendar, internet calendaring system executing in memory by a processor of a computer and non-transitory machine readable storage medium storing a computer program comprising a routine set of instructions executable by a machine amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission was abstract), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was abstract). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claims 22 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Additionally, claims 15, 16, and 20-22 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore claims 15, 16 and 20-22 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Klausmeier (US 20080040188 A1) – A system and method for providing temporary and limited grants of calendar access is provided. An invitee or its proxy may provide an event planner or time broker with a particular grant of calendar access comprising a date range, particular days of the week, and a particular time interval. The grant of calendar access allows the event planner to more easily identify a block of time for scheduling the particular event, the invitee calendar being updated in real-time. In some embodiments, the event planner may schedule the event and place the event directly on the invitee's calendar.
Mansikkaniemi et al. (US 20020063732 A1) – A wireless system having a central family calendar. Individual family members may access the family calendar from their wireless devices. The system also includes telephone and address information for non-family members. Important dates such as birthdays, associated with the non-family members may automatically appear in the calendar. The system may be incorporated into other family accessible devices such as a family bulletin board.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached at (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624