DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicants Request for Continued Examination received on September 17, 2025. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 is/are currently pending in the instant application.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 2, 7-9, 15, and 16 in the response filed on September 17, 2025. Claims 5, 12, and 19 were previously canceled.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 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 significantly more.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention (e.g. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claims include a system, method, or product and is a method of adjusting scheduled meetings which is a process (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 8 and product Claim 15. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (abstract ideas highlighted in italics and additional elements highlighted in bold)
determining, for at least a subset of meetings hosted by a video conference provider, engagement information for participants of the respective meeting based on received video or audio streams during the respective meeting, the engagement information comprising an amount of time the respective participant is speaking in the respective past meeting, eye racking or gaze detection information, or semantic analysis of the utterances or messages from the respective participant;
accessing, by a calendar analysis software component executed by the video conference provider, a meeting calendar associated with a user;
identifying, for each of a plurality of future meetings, one or more similar past meetings based on characteristics of a respective future meeting and one or more past meetings represented in the meeting calendar;
for the identified one or more past meetings, obtaining the engagement information for the user during the subset of the identified one or more past meetings, the engagement information for a respective past meeting comprising an amount of time the user is speaking in the respective past meeting, eye tracking or gaze detection information, or semantic analysis of utterances or messages from the user;
determining, using a first machine learning ("ML") model by the calendar analysis software component, meeting scores for the plurality of future meetings scheduled during a time period in the meeting calendar based on, for each of the future meetings, the engagement information for the one or more identified similar past meetings;
determining a modification of the meeting calendar, comprising iteratively:
determining a proposed modification of the meeting calendar based on the meeting scores for the plurality of future meetings scheduled during the future time period,
determining updated meeting scores for the plurality of future meetings scheduled during the future time period based on the proposed modification, and
determining an aggregate calendar score based on the updated meeting scores; and
modifying the meeting calendar according to the determined modification.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Determining engagement, identifying past and future meetings, scoring future scheduled meetings, determining proposed meeting modifications, recalculating meeting scores, and modifying a calendar recites managing personal behaviors or relationships. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a managing personal behaviors or relationships, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The communication interface, non-transitory computer readable medium, and one or more processors in Claim 8 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor executable instructions in Claim 15 appears to be just software. Claims 8 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
Additionally, the limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind. Determining engagement, identifying past and future meetings, scoring future scheduled meetings, determining proposed meeting modifications, recalculating meeting scores, and modifying a calendar recites a concept performed in the human mind. Bur for the “first machine learning (ML) model” language, the claim encompasses a user simply reviewing a meeting schedule and proposing changes to meetings based on available data and adjusting the calendar using his/her mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic machine learning model does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a concept performed in the human mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The communication interface, non-transitory computer readable medium, and one or more processors in Claim 8 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor executable instructions in Claim 15 appears to be just software. Claims 8 and 15 are also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite machine learning model (Claim 1) communication interface, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and one or more processors (claim 8) and/or non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising processor executable instructions (Claim 15). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0032] about implantation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices [client devices 140-160 may be conventional computing devices, such as desktop or laptop computers having processors and computer-readable media, connected to the video conference provider 110 using the internet or other suitable computer network.] and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1, 8, 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16-18, and 20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1, 8, 15 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and/or Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. The dependent claims include steps or processes which are similar to that disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(d), (f), (g), and/or (h) which include activities and functions the courts have determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when claimed in a generic manner, or as insignificant extra solution activity, or as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9-11, 13, 14, and 16-18, and 20are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments in the response on September 17, 2025 begin on page 10 of the remarks. The applicants begin with summarizing the claim amendments and traversing the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101.
The arguments move to the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101. The Applicant asserts that the claims are eligible as reciting a technological process of modifying a calendar to optimize a score on making proposed modifications to the calendar. The applicant asserts that the claims iterates a identifies modification that is then implemented by modifying a calendar, thus it recites a practical application as it’s a technique for using data from past meetings, scoring based on the existing schedule, and making hypothetical modifications to the calendar to optimize the users calendar based on the scored meetings, and modify the users calendar.
The Applicant further states the argument is similar for claims 8 and 15.
The Examiner does not agree. The determinations used for modification of the calendar are not meaningfully integrated and no linked together. The additional elements are simply by a machine learning model which is a pretrained model and is determining meeting scores based on a set algorithm. There is not aspect of learning to the model, rather it simply executes the same function each time with the particular data collected in the first determining step. Also, the claim is a series of determining steps where the arguments admin that the hypothetical changes are and optimization based on a meeting score as output from the fixed model and then used to adjust to change the calendar. This optimization based on scoring constitutes the abstract idea and is simply executed based on a model performed by a computer or processor.
In summary, the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 remains and the claims are not eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DYLAN C WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-1406 and email Dylan.white@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571)272-6737. 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.
/DYLAN C WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683 October 16, 2025