DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Application
This office action is in response to the most recent filings filed by applicant on 03/30/26.
Claims 1, 15 and 20 are amended
Claims 2, 9, 11, 16 and 18-19 are cancelled
No claims are added
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 20-26 are pending
Terminal Disclaimer
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 20-26 of the terminal disclaimer filed on 10/25/24 has been reviewed and is accepted. In light of the Terminal Disclaimer, the previously presented rejection under Double Patenting Rejection has been withdrawn in this office action.
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, 3-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 20-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-14, 22, and 25-26 is/are directed to a method which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 15, 17, 21 and 23 is/are directed to a system which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 20 and 24 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium which is a statutory category.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A under which a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception unless the claim satisfies a two-prong inquiry. Further, particular groupings of abstract ideas are consistent with judicial precedent and are based on an extraction and synthesis of the key concepts identified by the courts as being abstract.
With respect to the Step 2A, Prong One, the claims as drafted, and given their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the Abstract idea grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (business relations; relationships or interactions between people). For instance, independent Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, as evidenced by claim limitations “receiving, first data entered, the first data relating to a first object, wherein the first data includes an identifier of the first object, and the first object is a technician or a shop resource usable to perform a specific job on a vehicle; adding, the first data to a first vehicle shop schedule for a repair shop; receiving, second data entered the second data relating to a second object, wherein the second data includes an identifier of the second object and the second object is the other of the technician and the shop resource: adding, the second data to the first vehicle shop schedule, wherein: the shop resource includes a piece of shop equipment and/or a service shop bay at the repair shop, the first vehicle shop schedule includes a first set of appointments, the first set of appointments includes a first stored appointment, and the first stored appointment includes first temporal data and first customer data, but is not assigned to any technician or shop resource; displaying, at least a portion of the first vehicle shop schedule with a first view mode selected, each first element of the schedule matrix other than a first particular first element of the schedule matrix represents a date, and a technician or shop resource, the technician or shop resource for a second particular first element of the schedule matrix is the first object, each second element of the schedule matrix represents a different time, and the first particular first element of the schedule matrix is for displaying appointments corresponding to one or more unassigned stored appointments in the first vehicle shop schedule and includes a displayed an appointment corresponding to the first stored appointment; determining, an input to modify the first stored appointment in response to determining the displayed appointment corresponding to the first stored appointment was dragged from a first location a second location, wherein: the first location corresponds to the first particular first element of the schedule matrix as the displayed appointment and the corresponding first stored appointment are not assigned to any technician or shop resource prior to being dragged, the second location corresponds to the second particular first element of the schedule matrix, a particular second element, and a date, the particular second element corresponds to a particular time, and the input to modify the first stored appointment includes data indicative of the first object and second temporal data indicative of the date and the particular time, based on the displayed appointment being dragged to the second location corresponding to the second particular first element, the particular second element, and the date; in response to determining the input to modify the first appointment, determining whether a conflict exists with any appointment for the second object visible in the second view mode and the date and particular time indicated by the second temporal data; generating, by the processor in response to determining the input to modify the first stored appointment and determining the conflict does not exist, a modified first stored appointment that includes the second temporal data, the first customer data, and the data indicative of the first object; generating, a second set of appointments and a modified vehicle shop schedule by modifying the first set of appointments to include the modified first stored appointment in place of the first stored appointment; and displaying, at least a portion of the modified vehicle shop schedule, wherein the modified vehicle shop schedule includes the second set of appointments.”
These claim limitations belong to the grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the claims are related to scheduling appointment for servicing vehicles, and even more so, if the scheduler device schedules appointments with respect to technicians working at a repair shop and/or the resources available to the technicians at the repair shop for servicing vehicles (see specification [0005]). The claims recite, displaying, on a display, at least a portion of the first vehicle shop schedule in a graphical user interface, generating, by the processor in response to receiving the input to modify the first appointment, a modified first appointment that includes the first temporal data, the first customer data, and the data indicative of the particular object; displaying, on the display, at least a portion of the second vehicle shop schedule in the graphical user interface, wherein the second vehicle shop schedule includes the second set of appointments. Managing appointment scheduling for service vehicles for one or more human entities involves organizing human activity based on the description of “certain methods of organizing human activity” provided by the courts. The court have used the phrase “Certain methods of organizing human activity” as —fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
In the claims above of rows and columns does not provide an improvement to actual technology or the computer itself. At best Original Spec [0022] merely provides an improvement to the abstract idea itself: “The scheduler of the example embodiments may enable a shop to improve its management of workflow within the shop including scheduling technician time, service appointments, and shop resources”. This however is not improvement to technology or the computer itself. Examiner points to MPEP 2106.05(a) II stressing that: it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. As stated by MPEP 2106.04 I. reliance on “Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591, 106 USPQ2d at 1979” to state that a “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery” [argued here at Remarks as] “does not by itself satisfy the §101 inquiry" further corroborated by “SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 BL 275354 (Fed. Cir. Aug.02, 2018)”: “even if one assumes that the techniques claimed are groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant”, [argued here at Remarks as] “those features are not enough for eligibility because their innovation is innovation in ineligible subject matter” [here improving abstract “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and/or “Mental Processes”]. “An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting”. Simply said here, as in “SAP”, “no matter how much of [such] an advance in the field” “the claims [would] recite the advance [would still] lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas” with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm. This is corroborated by “Versata Dev Grp, Inc v SAP Am, Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015” undelaying the difference between improvement to entrepreneurial goal objective vs improvement to actual technology. See MPEP 2106.04.
Further, still the display characteristics described above such as the claimed arrangement of rows and columns can be argued to be part of the abstract grouping implementable by physical aids such as pen and paper. Still Step 2A prong one in light of MPEP 2106.04 III and III.B, and as such can be considered a “Mental Process” in addition to being a “A Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities.”
Independent Claims 15 and 20 is/are recite substantially similar limitations to independent claim 1 and is/are rejected under 2A for similar reasons to claim 1 above.
With respect to the Step 2A, Prong Two - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites “A method comprising: displaying a first graphical user interface (GUI) a computing system; by a processor of the computing system, via the first GUI, by the processor, stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory, displaying a second GUI on the display; by the processor, via the second GUI, by the processor, on the display, in a third GUI, wherein: the third GUI includes at least the first view mode and a second view mode, the third GUI includes a schedule matrix having multiple first elements and multiple second elements, each first element of the schedule matrix is a respective column or row of the schedule matrix and each second element of the schedule matrix is a respective row of the schedule matrix if each first element of the schedule matrix is a respective column or each second element of the schedule matrix is a respective column if each first element of the schedule matrix is a respective row, by the processor, within the third GUI, within the third GUI via a computer pointing device, within the third GUI, within the third GUI, by the processor, on the display, in the third GUI, A computing system comprising: a processor; a display; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions, wherein execution of the executable instructions by the processor causes the computing system to perform functions comprising: A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions executable by a processor to cause a computing system to perform functions comprising:”, such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim limitations, above are still recited so broadly, that they can reasonably be interpreted as being performed by a human being.
As a result, claims 1, 15 and 20 do not provide any specifics regarding the integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Similarly dependent claims 3-8, 10, 12-14, 17, and 21-26 are also directed to an abstract idea under 2A, first and second prong. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. For instance, dependent claim 3 recites “displaying at least a portion of the first vehicle shop schedule in the second GUI or displaying at least a portion of the modified vehicle shop schedule in the second GUI includes displaying a particular appointment in the second GUI, the method further includes displaying a third GUI upon the second GUI in response to a computing pointing device hovering above or in proximity to the particular appointment, and the third GUI includes additional information about the particular appointment not shown in the particular appointment displayed in the second GUI”. In this claim, “second GUI and third GUI” is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims which are similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claim above.
Dependent claims 10 recites “the particular object is the technician, and displaying at least a portion of the first vehicle shop schedule in the second GUI includes displaying the second GUI in response to selection of a view mode input at a view mode selector while the displaying the first vehicle shop schedule in a view mode other than a technician view mode.” In this claim, “second GUI” is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 21 recites “wherein the computing system is configured as a tablet device.” This claim limitation is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 22 recites “wherein the display of the computing system comprises a capacitive or resistive touch screen display.” In this claim, “display of the computing system comprises a capacitive or resistive touch screen display” is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 23 recites “wherein the computer pointing device comprises a keyboard, a joystick, a display pointer, a microphone, or a stylus.” In this claim, “computer pointing device comprises a keyboard, a joystick, a display pointer, a microphone, or a stylus” is an additional element, but it is still being recited such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 3-8, 10, 12-14, 17, and 21-26 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
With respect to Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. First, the invention lacks improvements to another technology or technical field [see Alice at 2351; 2019 IEG at 55], and lacks meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment [Alice at 2360, 2019 IEG at 55], and fails to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing [2019 IEG, 55]. For the reasons articulated above, the claims recite an abstract idea that is limited to a particular field of endeavor (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) and recites insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). By the factors and rationale provided above with respect to these MPEP sections, the additional elements of the claims that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application also fail to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of “A method comprising: displaying a first graphical user interface (GUI) a computing system; by a processor of the computing system, via the first GUI, by the processor, stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory, displaying a second GUI on the display; by the processor, via the second GUI, by the processor, on the display, in a third GUI, wherein: the third GUI includes at least the first view mode and a second view mode, the third GUI includes a schedule matrix having multiple first elements and multiple second elements, each first element of the schedule matrix is a respective column or row of the schedule matrix and each second element of the schedule matrix is a respective row of the schedule matrix if each first element of the schedule matrix is a respective column or each second element of the schedule matrix is a respective column if each first element of the schedule matrix is a respective row, by the processor, within the third GUI, within the third GUI via a computer pointing device, within the third GUI, within the third GUI, by the processor, on the display, in the third GUI, A computing system comprising: a processor; a display; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions, wherein execution of the executable instructions by the processor causes the computing system to perform functions comprising: A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions executable by a processor to cause a computing system to perform functions comprising:” are insufficient to amount to significantly more. Applicants originally submitted specification describes the computer components above at least in [0008], [0029]. In light of the specification, it should be noted that the components discussed above did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). (See MPEP 2106.05(f) - Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception - “Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 235). Mere instructions to apply an exception using computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.).
The claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Independent Claims 15 and 20 is/are recite substantially similar limitations to independent claim 1 and is/are rejected under 2B for similar reasons to claim 1 above.
Further, it should be noted that additional elements of the claimed invention such as claim limitations when considered individually or as an ordered combination along with the other limitations discussed above in method claim 1 also do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers"). In light of the specification, it should be noted that the claim limitations discussed above are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. See MPEP 2106.
Similarly, dependent claims 3-8, 10, 12-14, 17, and 21-26 also do not include limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea under the second prong or 2B of the Alice framework. In the present application, all of the dependent claims have been evaluated and it was found that they all inherit the deficiencies set forth with respect to the independent claims. Further, it should be noted that the dependent claims do not include limitations that overcome the stated assertions. Here, the dependent claims recite features/limitations that include computer components identified above in part 2B of analysis of independent claims 1, 15 and 20. As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 3-8, 10, 12-14, 17, and 21-26 are also directed to the abstract idea identified above.
For more information on 101 rejections, see MPEP 2106, January 2019 Guidance at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01 -07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf
Prior Art Rejection Withdrawn
In the most recent filings, applicants have amended independent claims 1, 15 and 20. Please see the Remarks dated 03/26/24, especially on pages 19-20 from applicants why the 103 rejection is overcome are persuasive. As such, the prior art rejection for claims 1, 3-8, 10, 12-15, 17, and 20-26 has been withdrawn.
The limitations underlined below are the limitations, in light of the specification, not shown by prior art:
“A method comprising:
Displaying a first graphical user interface (GUI) a computing system;
receiving, by a processor of the computing system, first data entered via the first GUI, the first data relating to a first object, wherein the first data includes an identifier of the first object, and the first object is a technician or a shop resource usable to perform a specific job on a vehicle;
adding, by the processor, the first data to a first vehicle shop schedule for a repair shop stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory;
Displaying a second GUI on the display;
Receiving, by the processor, the second data entered via the second GUI the second data relating to a second object, wherein the second data includes an identifier of the second object and the second object is the other of the technician and the shop resource:
Adding, by the processor, the second data to the first vehicle shop schedule, wherein:
the shop resource includes a piece of shop equipment and/or a service shop bay at the repair shop,
the first vehicle shop schedule includes a first set of appointments,
the first set of appointments includes a first stored appointment,
and the first stored appointment includes first temporal data and first customer data, but is not assigned to any technician or shop resource;
displaying, on the display, at least a portion of the first vehicle shop schedule in a third GUI with a first view mode selected, wherein:
the third GUI includes at least the first view mode and a second view mode,
the third GUI includes a schedule matrix having multiple first elements and multiple second elements,
each first element of the schedule matrix is a respective column or row of the schedule matrix and each second element of the schedule matrix is a respective row of the schedule matrix if each first element of the schedule matrix is a respective column or each second element of the schedule matrix is a respective column if each first element of the schedule matrix is a respective row,
each first element of the schedule matrix other than a first particular first element of the schedule matrix represents a date, and a technician or shop resource,
the technician or shop resource for a second particular first element of the schedule matrix is the first object,
each second element of the schedule matrix represents a different time, and
the first particular first element of the schedule matrix is for displaying appointments corresponding to one or more unassigned stored appointments in the first vehicle shop schedule and includes a displayed an appointment corresponding to the first stored appointment;
determining, by the processor, an input to modify the first stored appointment in response to determining the displayed appointment corresponding to the first stored appointment was dragged from a first location within the third GUI to a second location within the third GUI via a computer pointing device, wherein:
the first location within the third GUI corresponds to the first particular first element of the schedule matrix as the displayed appointment and the corresponding first stored appointment are not assigned to any technician or shop resource prior to being dragged,
the second location within the third GUI corresponds to the second particular first element of the schedule matrix, a particular second element, and a date,
the particular second element corresponds to a particular time, and
the input to modify the first appointment includes data indicative of the first object and second temporal data indicative of the date and the particular time, based on the displayed appointment being dragged to the second location corresponding to the second particular first element, the particular second element, and the date;
in response to determining the input to modify the first appointment, determining by the processor, whether a conflict exists with any appointment for the second object visible in the second view mode and the date and particular time indicated by the second temporal data;
generating, by the processor in response to determining the input to modify the first stored appointment and determining the conflict does not exist, a modified first stored appointment that includes the second temporal data, the first customer data, and the data indicative of the first particular object;
generating, by the processor, a second set of appointments and a modified vehicle shop schedule by modifying the first set of appointments to include the modified first stored appointment in place of the first stored appointment; and
displaying, on the display, at least a portion of the modified vehicle shop schedule in the third GUI, wherein the modified vehicle shop schedule includes the second set of appointments.”
In light of applicants’ arguments and the amendments filed by applicants to previously presented claims in light of the originally filed disclosure the previously made rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn for following reasons:
None of the references cited Carlson, Kent R. et al. (US 2004/0102983), Kelly, John et al. (US 2004/0249530), Leslie; Christopher E. (US 2007/0050225) and Picard; Benjamin Clair (US 2009/0062978) show the claim limitations discussed above in light of the specification.
Even though, Reference Carlson, Kent R. et al. (US 2004/0102983) shows in Carlson: See Fig. 1, #50-60, [0018]: which shows job drop-off and job delivery slots for a facility are allocated throughout a production period in step 10. For a vehicle collision service provider, job drop-off slots are defined as times when a customer can drop-off their vehicle for repairs to be performed by the service providers. [0032]: a first-available drop-off slot begins with the computer program reviewing the schedule database and determining at step 50 whether a drop-off slot of the job size category of the repair job is available on the desired drop-off day for a job) and first customer data ([0029]: such as customer name, repair payment source (insurance company), cost estimate for repair, etc. [0037]-[0038]: shows the ability to reschedule appointments and also override the scheduling system for a customer), or (ii) replacing a second technician identifier with the first technician identifier if the first new appointment further comprises second technician data comprising at least the second technician identifier ([0028]: service provider can adjust the drop-off and delivery capacities on selected days to accommodate employee vacations, injuries, health issues, non-productions days, jury duty, etc. [0049]: where repair tasks and sales figures are grouped by estimators. Carlson: See Fig. 1, #50-60, [0018]: which shows job drop-off and job delivery slots for a facility are allocated throughout a production period in step 10. For a vehicle collision service provider, job drop-off slots are defined as times when a customer can drop-off their vehicle for repairs to be performed by the service providers. [0032]: a first-available drop-off slot begins with the computer program reviewing the schedule database and determining at step 50 whether a drop-off slot of the job size category of the repair job is available on the desired drop-off day for a job) and first customer data ([0029]: such as customer name, repair payment source (insurance company), cost estimate for repair, etc. [0037]-[0038]: shows the ability to reschedule appointments and also override the scheduling system for a customer), or (ii) replacing a second technician identifier with the first technician identifier if the first new appointment further comprises second technician data comprising at least the second technician identifier ([0028]: service provider can adjust the drop-off and delivery capacities on selected days to accommodate employee vacations, injuries, health issues, non-productions days, jury duty, etc. [0049]: where repair tasks and sales figures are grouped by estimators. Here, technician identifier reads on “an identifier of the particular shop resource” in the claim. Carlson does not explicitly show the “shop schedule” as is recited in the claim. Carlson also does not show the above underlined limitations. As such, the reference does not show the above claim limitations.
Reference Kelly, John et al. (US 2004/0249530) shows a “shop schedule” at least in Fig. 11 and [0070]-[0071]. Kelly does not show “schedule matrix”. However, the reference does not show the above claim limitations.
Reference Leslie; Christopher E. (US 2007/0050225) shows in “schedule matrix” at least in Fig. 7, [0056], and Fig. 21, [0066]-[0068]. Reference Leslie shows in Fig. 4, [0050]-[0054]: which shows the weekly task schedule and the resources allocated to the task. It also shows the task timing and which tasks can be more flexible.
However, Carlson, Kelly, and Leslie do not explicitly show first and second shop as is discussed in the claim. Picard shows first and second shop at least in Fig. 2C: “Location”: “Mill Valley” …..” Dallas”, [0041]-[0042]: which shows different locations and the user’s ability to rate each location. Also, see [0065]: where Picard shows scheduling using a multi-variate regression analysis for multiple different criteria. Fig. 3B and [0041]: shows mechanic identifier. Further, 3J shows list of appointments. However, the reference does not show “first and second shop”.
Reference Picard; Benjamin Clair (US 2009/0062978) shows in Picard shows first and second shop at least in Fig. 2C: “Location”: “Mill Valley” …..”Dallas”, [0041]-[0042]: which shows different locations and the user’s ability to rate each location. Also, see [0065]: where Picard shows scheduling using a multi-variate regression analysis for multiple different criteria. Fig. 3B and [0041]: shows mechanic identifier. Further, 3J shows list of appointments. However, the reference does not show the above claim limitations.
As such, References Carlson, Kelly, Leslie and Picard do not explicitly show the above underlined limitations.
*Additionally, the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure; however, the reference does not show the above claim limitations:
NPL Reference:
Reference Sharma, R. et al. Performance analysis and improvement of job shop systems: A simulation study. IEEE-International Conference on Advances in Engineering, Science and Management (ICAESM -2012) (Page(s): 393-398). This reference is concerned with customer satisfaction is one of the key performance parameters in the present business scenario of systems like job shop which are characterized by high variety and low volume products. In such systems customer satisfaction strongly depends on factors like delivery time and quality of product/service provided. In order to achieve this, it becomes essential to perform proper planning of resource and establish the framework for setting the relative parameters effects and the significance of the assumed parameters. The contribution of present paper lies in developing capacity planning of resources (in terms of buffers and workstations) and setting the priorities to focus on the assumed decision and system parameters and also in highlighting likely factor-level combinations that would result in near-optimal shop performance. However, the reference does not show the claim limitations above.
Foreign Reference:
Reference (WO2011127535A1) Vais, James. Vehicle repair system, apparatus and software. This reference relates to a vehicle collision repair process which is carried out in a body shop which has bays (57, 78, 59, 61) arranged in lanes (54, 56). Tasks are performed on vehicles in work bays. The time of commencing a task, and the time of finishing a task, are recorded by the scanning of a bar code which is allocated to the vehicle. Tasks performed and workers performing a task are also identified by scanning bar codes. A listing of tasks which the worker is to perform on a vehicle which is within a bay is displayed to the worker. However, the reference does not show the claim limitations above.
None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, interalia, the claimed invention as detailed in independent claims 1, 15 and 20, wherein the novelty of the claimed invention is in the combination of limitations and not in any single limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments made to previously presented claims.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicants argue on page(s) 20-22 of applicants remarks that “Applicant's claims do not merely display a vehicle shop schedule within a GUI. Rather, vehicle shop schedule includes an interactive schedule matrix (Specification at 11 0094 and 00175). The rows and columns of the matrix establish particular locations within the matrix such that a second location in the matrix can be determined after an appointment is dragged from a first location in the matrix. Applicant submits that appointments of a matrix cannot be dragged from one location to another using pen and paper.” (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #1
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, it should be noted that the claim limitation argued by applicants above recites as follows:
“determining, by the processor, an input to modify the first stored appointment in response to determining the displayed appointment corresponding to the first stored appointment was dragged from a first location within the third GUI to a second location within the third GUI via a computer pointing device, wherein:
the first location within the third GUI corresponds to the first particular first element of the schedule matrix as the displayed appointment and the corresponding first stored appointment are not assigned to any technician or shop resource prior to being dragged,
the second location within the third GUI corresponds to the second particular first element of the schedule matrix, a particular second element, and a date,
the particular second element corresponds to a particular time, and
the input to modify the first stored appointment includes data indicative of the first object and second temporal data indicative of the date and the particular time, based on the displayed appointment being dragged to the second location corresponding to the second particular first element, the particular second element, and the date;”
The claims as recited are broad and ambiguous. Firstly, it is unclear who is performing the above steps? Is it being performed by a human being or a computer? Limitations like “via a computer pointing device” or “by the processor” are recited at a super high level of generality. They do not adequately tie the additional elements to the abstract idea. As such, the breadth in the scope of the claim allows for a broadest reasonable interpretation by one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably interpret that a human being is performing the step “by the processor” or “via a computer pointing device”.
Secondly, dragging an icon from one spot on the GUI to another is simply moving the icon to a different place. This is simply updating the appointment on the calendar, which is solving a business problem. There is no improvement made to the technology or the technological area.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicants argue on page(s) 22-24 of applicants remarks that “Further, according to claim 1, the technician or shop resource for the second particular first element of the schedule matrix is the first object. Claim 1 provides for receiving first data via a first GUI, the first data relating to the first object which turns out to be a technician or a shop resource useable to perform a specific job on a vehicle. Claim 1 also provides for receiving second data via a second GUI, the second data relating to a second object being the other of the technician and the shop resource. Prior to generating an input to modify the first stored appointment, the processor determines that a conflict does not exist within any appointment for the second object. Furthermore, the processor determines the input to modify was made via a computer pointing device dragging a displayed appointment between two locations within a GUI. Such determination can't be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a paper and pen.” (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #2
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Please see Response to Argument #1. The claims as recited are broad and ambiguous. Firstly, it is unclear who is performing the above steps? Is it being performed by a human being or a computer? Limitations like “via a computer pointing device” or “by the processor” are recited at a super high level of generality. They do not adequately tie the additional elements to the abstract idea. As such, the breadth in the scope of the claim allows for a broadest reasonable interpretation by one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably interpret that a human being is performing the step “by the processor” or “via a computer pointing device”.
Secondly, dragging an icon from one spot on the GUI to another is simply moving the icon to a different place. This is simply updating the appointment on the calendar, which is solving a business problem. There is no improvement made to the technology or the technological area.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicants argue on page(s) 22-25 of applicants remarks that “Furthermore, Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test asks whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 provides for an improved user interface for modifying schedules for which an appointment has already been made. The third GUI includes a schedule matrix particularly defined with columns and rows such that a previously made and unassigned appointment can be dragged from one location to another location with the matrix such that the processor can determine new appointment data associated with the new location and update the appointment using the new appointment data. Afterwards, a schedule is modified to include the updated appointment. The third GUI and schedule matrix provides a manner of modifying a schedule that cannot be performed using pen and paper.” (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #3
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Please see Response to Argument #1. The claims as recited are broad and ambiguous. Firstly, it is unclear who is performing the above steps? Is it being performed by a human being or a computer? Limitations like “via a computer pointing device” or “by the processor” are recited at a super high level of generality. They do not adequately tie the additional elements to the abstract idea. As such, the breadth in the scope of the claim allows for a broadest reasonable interpretation by one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably interpret that a human being is performing the step “by the processor” or “via a computer pointing device”.
Secondly, dragging an icon from one spot on the GUI to another is simply moving the icon to a different place. This is simply updating the appointment on the calendar, which is solving a business problem. There is no improvement made to the technology or the technological area.
Thirdly, regarding applicants’ remarks that “The third GUI includes a schedule matrix particularly defined with columns and rows such that a previously made and unassigned appointment can be dragged from one location to another location with the matrix such that the processor can determine new appointment data associated with the new location and update the appointment using the new appointment data. Afterwards, a schedule is modified to include the updated appointment. The third GUI and schedule matrix provides a manner of modifying a schedule that cannot be performed using pen and paper” is unpersuasive. The claim limitations argued are, as discussed above, recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than: adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant’s Argument #4
Applicants argue on page(s) 22-26 of applicants remarks that “Even assuming, arguendo, that claim 1, as amended, is directed to a judicial exception, the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the relevant field. Rather, the claim defines a specific implementation that imposes meaningful limits on the alleged abstract idea and improves the operation of the computing system and/or another technical field. Accordingly, claim 1 includes an inventive concept sufficient to transform any alleged abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter under Step 2B.” (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #4
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The above remarks are not persuasive. Please see Response to Arguments #1-3 for details.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL Reference:
Sharma, R. et al. Performance analysis and improvement of job shop systems: A simulation study. IEEE-International Conference on Advances in Engineering, Science and Management (ICAESM -2012) (Page(s): 393-398). This reference is concerned with customer satisfaction is one of the key performance parameters in the present business scenario of systems like job shop which are characterized by high variety and low volume products. In such systems customer satisfaction strongly depends on factors like delivery time and quality of product/service provided. In order to achieve this, it becomes essential to perform proper planning of resource and establish the framework for setting the relative parameters effects and the significance of the assumed parameters. The contribution of present paper lies in developing capacity planning of resources (in terms of buffers and workstations) and setting the priorities to focus on the assumed decision and system parameters and also in highlighting likely factor-level combinations that would result in near-optimal shop performance.
Foreign Reference:
(WO2011127535A1) Vais, James. Vehicle repair system, apparatus and software. This reference relates to a vehicle collision repair process which is carried out in a body shop which has bays (57, 78, 59, 61) arranged in lanes (54, 56). Tasks are performed on vehicles in work bays. The time of commencing a task, and the time of finishing a task, are recorded by the scanning of a bar code which is allocated to the vehicle. Tasks performed and workers performing a task are also identified by scanning bar codes. A listing of tasks which the worker is to perform on a vehicle which is within a bay is displayed to the worker.
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 NANCY PRASAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3265. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM 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, 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 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.
/N.N.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 /HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 June 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights