DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Amendment filed 02/19/2026.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC § 101:
Applicant submits on page 11 of the remarks that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that if a claim limitation cover managing interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the present claims are not directed to improving a user interface, rather these claims are using multiple displays to display different information.
Applicant submits on pages 12-15 of the arguments that the claims recite additional features that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception. The claims as presented are merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a computer system.
Applicant submits on page 15 of the remarks that the claims amount to significantly more than any judicial exception. Examiner notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims merely recite the use of a generic computer to perform generic computer functions of storing and transmitting data. These generic computer functions do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 10, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amended claims recite the limitations “…determining that a meeting will occur within a specific time window; and controlling the first user device to automatically transform a visual layout of the user interface by relocating and visually emphasizing one of the one or more interface elements associated with the meeting in a dedicated position while suppressing visual display of other meetings in other positions of the user interface…”. The originally filed disclosure does not provide support for these amended limitations. Although [0106] discloses manipulating or transforming data, The disclosure does not specifically describe, or otherwise, demonstrate features including relocating or emphasizing interface elements.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, 20 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claims 1/10/19 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons describe above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 10 and 19) are directed, in part, to a method and a system for meeting suggestions. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019- Guidance, claims 1-9 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process, claims 10-18 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine and claims 19-20 are directed to a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture, therefore the claims are eligible under Step 1. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes managing interactions between people.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to obtaining user relationship data between a first user and a plurality of other users, the user relationship data including first measurements of a first network attribute between the first user and the plurality of other users and second measurements of a second network attribute between the first user and the plurality of other users; causing a first user interface to be generated on a first user device associated with the first user to receive receiving user preferences from the first user, the user preferences including at least a first preference of the first user on the first network attribute and a second preference of the first user on the second network attribute; identifying, from the plurality of other users and using one or more machine learning models, a set of users as weak-tie connections with the first user based on the first preference and the first measurements of the first network attribute, wherein a weak-tie connection is associated with a lower score on frequency and recency of interactions, communication reciprocity, and mutual connections than that of a strong-tie connection; filtering the set of users based on the second preference and the second measurements of the second network attribute to determine, from the set of users, one or more second users to meet with the first user; automatically determining, using the one or more machine learning models, one or more available meeting time slots for the first user meeting with each of the one or more second users; wherein the one or more machine learning models are trained to predict weak-tie connection strength by processing temporal interaction frequency data, communication reciprocity metrics, and mutual connection graphs, and are trained to predict meeting acceptance probabilities based on historical acceptance rates, diversity scores, and temporal proximity of suggested meetings, and wherein determining the one or more available meeting time slots comprises executing the one or more machine learning models to generate one or more scores and automatically selecting time slots having the one or more scores exceeding at least a dynamic threshold; controlling the first user device to add one or more interface elements to a user interface at specific calculated positions corresponding to the one or more available meeting time slots; detecting one or more changes of the user preferences; in response to detecting the one or more changes, controlling the first user device to automatically modify a visual format of the user interface by moving one of the one or more interface elements to a new position on the user interface; or removing one of the one or more interface elements from the user interface; determining that a meeting will occur within a specific time window; and controlling the first user device to automatically transform a visual layout of the user interface by relocating and visually emphasizing one of the one or more interface elements associated with the meeting in a dedicated position while suppressing visual display of other meetings in other positions of the user interface. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing interactions between people, then it falls under the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: “meeting interfaces”; “a first and second network”; “a system”; “a processor”; “a memory”; “a first and a second user interface”; “interface elements”; “computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium”; “one or more machine learning models”. These additional element in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figure 3 and related text and [0100-0103] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “In example embodiments, one or more computer systems (e.g., a standalone, client or server computer system) or one or more hardware modules of a computer system (e.g., a processor or a group of processors) may be configured by software (e.g., an application or application portion) as a hardware module that operates to perform certain operations as described herein. In various embodiments, a hardware module may be implemented mechanically or electronically. For example, a hardware module may include dedicated circuitry or logic that is permanently configured (e.g., as a special-purpose processor, such as a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC)) to perform certain operations. A hardware module may also include programmable logic or circuitry (e.g., as encompassed within a general-purpose processor or other programmable processors) that is temporarily configured by software to perform certain operations. It will be appreciated that the decision to implement a hardware module mechanically, in dedicated and permanently configured circuitry, or in temporarily configured circuitry (e.g., configured by software) may be driven by cost and time considerations. The various operations of example methods described herein may be performed, at least partially, by one or more processors that are temporarily configured (e.g., by software) or permanently configured to perform the relevant operations. Whether temporarily or permanently configured, such processors may constitute processor-implemented modules that operate to perform one or more operations or functions. The modules referred to herein may, in some example embodiments, include processor-implemented modules. The one or more processors may also operate to support performance of the relevant operations in a "cloud computing" environment or as a "software as a service" (SaaS). For example, at least some of the operations may be performed by a group of computers (as examples of machines including processors), these operations being accessible via a network (e.g., the Internet) and via one or more appropriate interfaces (e.g., application program interfaces (APIs).)” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Next, when the “machine learning” is evaluated as an additional element, this feature is recited at a high level of generality and encompasses well-understood, routine, and conventional prior art activity. See, e.g., Balsiger et al., US 2012/0054642, noting in paragraph [0077] that “Machine learning is well known to those skilled in the art.” See also, Djordjevic et al. US 2013/0018651, noting in paragraph [0019] that “As known in the art, a generative model can be used in machine learning to model observed data directly.” See also, Bauer et al., US 2017/0147941, noting at paragraph [0002] that “Problems of understanding the behavior or decisions made by machine learning models have been recognized in the conventional art and various techniques have been developed to provide solutions.” Accordingly, the use of machine learning to generate a learning model does not add significantly more to the claims. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm 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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights