DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
12/26/2025. In Applicant’s amendment, claims 1 and 13 were amended. Claims 21-24 are cancelled. Claims 1-5, 8-17, and 20 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 8-9 that the claims integrate any judicial exception into a practical application by improving the technical field of digital scheduling systems because a lack of transparency in scheduling options is a technical problem that impedes the system’s effective operation.Examiner respectfully disagrees. The asserted problem is not a technical problem in the functioning of the digital scheduling system itself. The lack of transparency in scheduling options does not impact how the digital scheduling system or computer function. The improvement is in the usability or user’s decision making experience while performing a scheduling process. The recited GUI is used to perform its conventional functions for input and output. The claims analyze calendar data, historical scheduling behavior, event constraints, and scheduling templates to select times for a recurring event, and in response to a user’s attempted drag and drop rescheduling to an unavailable time, presenting alternative available times and updating a schedule display based on the user’s selection. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not recite significantly more.
Applicant's prior art arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejections. In particular, see p. 10-11 of applicant’s remarks filed 12/26/2025.
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 1-5, 8-17, and 20 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (non-transitory computer readable media and method). Claims 1-5, 8-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-5, 8-12 are directed toward the statutory category of an article of manufacturer (reciting a “non-transitory computer readable media”). Claims 13-17, 20 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1 and 13 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting … based at least in part on calendar data associated with the candidate, identifying a plurality of scheduling constraints associated with the candidate attendee, the scheduling constraints including at least one scheduled time constraint during which the candidate attendee has a previously scheduled event; wherein the plurality of scheduling constraints associated with the candidate attendee are identified based on a pattern of historical user scheduling behavior; wherein the pattern of historical user scheduling behavior comprises one or both of cancelation requests and rescheduling requests for reoccurring events during one or both of a time of day or a day of week; identifying a plurality of event constraints associated with a reoccurring event, the plurality of event constraints including an availability schedule identifying a first set of times for the reoccurring event and a second set of times for the reoccurring event; based at least in part on (1) the scheduling constraints associated with the candidate attendee, (2) the plurality of event constraints, and (3) a scheduling template applicable to the candidate attendee: selecting the first set of times for including the reoccurring event in the schedule … determining, based at least in part on the plurality of event constraints, that the reoccurring event is not available at the target set of times; responsive to the first user input to drag-and-drop the visual element from the visual representation of the first time slot to the visual representation of the second time slot and further responsive to determining that the reoccurring event is not available at the target set of times: presenting … one or more alternative options for rescheduling the reoccurring event, wherein the one or more alternative options comprises the second set of times; receiving … second user input that selects the second set of times for rescheduling the reoccurring event … (example claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claims modify a presentation of a schedule for a reoccurring event given constraints associated with the candidate attendee and the reoccurring event which is a methods of organizing human activity like managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions and at least one processor; presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a visual representation of a schedule for a candidate attendee; modifying the GUI so that the visual representation of the schedule includes the reoccurring event at the first set of times; receiving, via the GUI, first user input comprising an instruction to drag-and-drop a visual element that represents the reoccurring event from (a) a visual representation of a first time slot in the visual representation of the schedule, corresponding to the first set of times to (b) a visual representation of a second time slot in the visual representation of the schedule, corresponding to a target set of times; responsive to the second user input: modifying the GUI so that the visual representation of the schedule includes the reoccurring event at the second set of times) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 2-5, 8-12, 14-17, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps of “presenting” a schedule, “identifying” scheduling and event constraints, “selecting” the first set of times, “modifying” the GUI, “ receiving” first user input, “determining” the set of times is incompatible, “presenting” alternative options, “ receiving” second user input, and “modifying” the GUI (example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-5, 8-17, and 20 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0222451 A1; AU 2022201049 B2; Hosein et al., Event scheduling with soft constraints and on-demand re-optimization, 2016.
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 extension fee 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 MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights