DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 17/838,098 filed on 06/10/2022. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Application 17/838,098 filed 06/10/2022 claims Priority from Provisional Application 63/209,864, filed 06/11/2021.
Response to Amendment
4. In the response filed February 11, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 4-11, 18, and 20, and did not cancel any claims. No new claims were presented for examination.
5. Applicant's amendments to claims 2, 4-10, and 20 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued rejection of claims 2, 4-12, and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
6. Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 11, and 20 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed February 11, 2026, have been fully considered.
8. Applicant submits “Indeed, the currently amended claims, as a whole, integrate an alleged judicial exception (Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity) into a practical application. Indeed, as explained in MPEP § 2106.05(a), a claim integrates an abstract idea into a practical application when it applies the idea in a manner that improves the functioning of a computer or another technology. Here, the amended claims expressly utilize a two-phase scheduling process to generate an improvement in the operation of a digital calendar system, namely, controlling when calendar entries are modified during automated scheduling. In particular, the currently amended independent claims expressly recite that (i) candidate time blocks are identified and temporarily blocked without committing calendar entries, (ii) multiple scheduling scenarios are simulated while the first digital calendar remains unmodified, and (iii) calendar entries are committed only after completion of the simulation phase (e.g., after an optimized configuration is determined). See Specification at [0069]-[0070]. As such, these limitations do not merely automate a scheduling preference, but instead enumerate a technical solution to a computer-centric problem-how to perform automated, multi- scenario scheduling without introducing intermediate or conflicting calendar states. By deferring modification of the first digital calendar until after the two-phase simulation is complete, the currently amended claims improves the manner in which the calendar system itself operates during automated scheduling.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 02/11/2026, page 18]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is noted that the additional elements in exemplary claim 1 are: at least one processor, a memory, executable instructions, a first digital calendar, an online event organization platform, a non-calendar event organization platform, and a calendar graphical user interface, which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware, software/instructions, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.
Furthermore, it is noted that Applicant’s claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no processor, memory, executable instructions, online event organization platform, non-calendar event organization platform, calendar graphical user interface, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information about a second user event which is not a technical result or improvement thereof. Nevertheless, even assuming arguendo that an improvement was achieved, improving the process of scheduling user events, at most, seems to provide an improvement to a business process using generic computing elements, such that any incidental improvement achieved by automating the claim steps would come from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer rather than the sequence of steps/activities recited in the method itself, which does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claim. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”) (cited in the Federal Circuit's FairWarning decision).
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, it is noted that the claimed “two-phase scheduling process,” including identifying candidate time block without committing entries, simulating scheduling scenarios while the calendar remains unmodified, and committing entries after simulation amounts to managing and organizing scheduling information, which falls within the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. While applicant asserts that deferring modification of the calendar improves system operation, the claims do not recite any specific technological improvement to the functioning of the computer or calendar system itself. Indeed, the claimed steps merely manipulate data representing calendar entries, and control the timing of when such data is written. Such operations are considered generic data processing functions performed by a computer. The claims do not improve computer performance, improve memory usage or data structures, or provide a specific technological solution to a technical problem in computer systems. Instead, the alleged improvement relates to the quality or accuracy of scheduling outcomes, which is an improvement to the abstract idea itself, not to computer technology. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
9. Applicant submits “Importantly, the claims do not merely recite the result of scheduling, but instead define a specific sequence of computer operations that governs when and how the calendar is modified. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, the two-phase scheduling process controlling modification of the digital calendar in automatically scheduling a user habit imposes a meaningful limit on the alleged judicial exception, and is not a mere equivalent of the words "apply it" or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, the claims as a whole are not directed to the abstract idea of organizing human activity or any other abstract idea, and are patent eligible.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 02/11/2026, pages 18-19]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is noted that reciting a sequence of steps for performing an abstract idea does not render the claim non-abstract. The ordered combination of blocking, simulating, and committing, constitutes a logical sequence for organizing and evaluating scheduling options, which can be performed conceptually and does not require any specialized computer implementation. The amended claim does not recite any particular algorithmic improvement, or any specialized hardware. Therefore, the sequence represents an abstract process implemented on a generic computer, rather than a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
10. Applicant submits “Even assuming, arguendo, that the claims are directed to the alleged abstract ideas, the claims are still patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims as a whole recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. MPEP $2106.05 states that "consideration of the elements in combination is particularly important, because even if an additional element does not amount to significantly more on its own, it can still amount to significantly more when considered in combination with the other elements of the claim." In particular, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05, the courts have found that limitations that quality as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include "improvements to any other technology or technical field." In contrast to merely adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), the additional limitations of the currently amended independent claims include improvements to a technical field or other technology. In particular, as amended, the claims recite an ordered combination of elements that is neither well-understood, routine, nor conventional. In particular, the currently amended claims include: deferring calendar modification during a blocking phase, executing a simulation phase while the calendar remains unmodified; and committing calendar entries only after completion of the simulation phase. This ordered combination provides a specific computer-implemented scheduling mechanism that differs from conventional calendar systems, which typically create (or modify) calendar entries as scheduling decisions are made. As such, the additional limitations of the currently amended independent claims, in combination, recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity." Indeed, by executing a two-phase scheduling process, the currently amended independent claims directly improve the technological field of intelligent calendar and schedule managing systems that automatically generate scheduling suggestions for digital calendars. See Specification at [0002].” [Applicant’s Remarks, 02/11/2026, pages 19-20]
Applicant alludes to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry by suggesting that “the additional limitations of the currently amended independent claims include improvements to a technical field or other technology.” In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no at least one processor, memory, executable instructions, online event organization platform, non-calendar event organization platform, calendar graphical user interface, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information relating to a first time block in the first week, a second time block in the second week, and a second user event, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof.
The purported “improvement” identified by the Applicant (i.e., scheduling habits at different times in different weeks) represent an advancement in the abstract idea itself (i.e., organizing and managing human activity), not an improvement to computer functionality or any other technology. As stickseed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Ban Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), merely implementing an abstract concept on a general-purpose computer or instructing one to “apply it” using conventional technology does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, this argument is found unpersuasive.
Moreover, Applicant’s assertion that the claimed combination differs from conventional calendar systems is not supported by evidence in the record demonstrating that the claimed operation are technologically unconventional. Even if the particular arrangement of steps is novel, novelty alone does not confer eligibility under 35 U.S.C.101. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
For the reasons above along with the reasons set forth in the updated §101 rejection set forth below, Applicant’s amendments and arguments concerning the §101 rejection are not sufficient to overcome the rejection.
11. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 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.
14. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the system (claims 1-2, 4-10), method (claims 11-12, 14-19), and computer program product (claim 20) are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine, process, and article of manufacture, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping set forth in MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for managing scheduling activities, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions). With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: receive a user habit for scheduling with a first digital calendar associated with a user; identify a plurality of scheduling settings associated with the user habit; execute a two-phase scheduling process that controls modification of the first digital calendar during automated scheduling by: executing a blocking phase by, utilizing the at least one processor, determining one or more candidate time blocks for the user habit based on the plurality of scheduling settings and first calendar characteristics corresponding to the first digital calendar, the blocking phase storing the one or more candidate time blocks as one or more temporarily blocked intervals without committing the one or more candidate time blocks as calendar entries to the first digital calendar; and executing a simulation phase, utilizing the at least one processor, to determine an optimized time block configuration by simulating concurrent scheduling scenarios across the one or more candidate time blocks while the first digital calendar remains unmodified; determine, for a first week within the first digital calendar, the optimized time block configuration including a first day and a first time block for the user habit to occur based on the plurality of scheduling settings associated with the user habit and the first calendar characteristics corresponding to the first week within the first digital calendar; determine, for a second week within the first digital calendar, the optimized time block configuration including a second day and a second time block for the user habit to occur based on the plurality of scheduling settings associated the user habit and second calendar characteristics corresponding to the second week within the first digital calendar, wherein the first day and the second day are on different weekdays and the first time block is different than the second time block; automatically, upon completion of the simulation phase, schedule the user habit in the first digital calendar according to the optimized time block configuration by automatically blocking time during the first day and the first time block for the first week and the second day and the second time block for the second week, wherein the first time block and the second time block are blocked without requiring the user to manually manipulate the first digital calendar associated with the user; detect, from an online event organization platform, a second user event associated with the user, wherein the second user event is not in the first digital calendar associated with the user, and wherein the online event organization platform is a non-calendar event organization platform; automatically schedule the second user event detected from the online event organization platform in the first digital calendar associated with the user by automatically blocking time for the second user event in the first digital calendar associated with the user; and provide, for display within a calendar graphical user interface, the first digital calendar comprising the first time block in the first week, the second time block in the second week, and the second user event. These steps describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) and are organizing human activity because the limitations are directly tied to managing a user schedule.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: at least one processor, a memory, executable instructions, a first digital calendar, an online event organization platform, a non-calendar event organization platform, and a calendar graphical user interface (claim 1), a first digital calendar, the at least one processor, an online event organization platform, a non-calendar event organization platform, a calendar graphical user interface (claim 11), a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable program code stored thereon, a first digital calendar, the at least one processor, an online event organization platform, a non-calendar event organization platform, and a calendar graphical user interface (claim 20). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the step for providing is not deemed part of the abstract idea, this step is at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to the independent claims, the additional elements are: at least one processor, a memory, executable instructions, a first digital calendar, an online event organization platform, a non-calendar event organization platform, and a calendar graphical user interface (claim 1), a first digital calendar, the at least one processor, an online event organization platform, a non-calendar event organization platform, a calendar graphical user interface (claim 11), a non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-readable program code stored thereon, a first digital calendar, the at least one processor, an online event organization platform, a non-calendar event organization platform, and a calendar graphical user interface (claim 20). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification suggests that virtually any type of computing device under the sun can be used to implement the claimed invention (Specification at paragraph [0036]). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
Even if the step for providing is not deemed part of the abstract idea, this step is at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610,118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
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. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-19 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above. In particular, dependent claims 2 and 4-10 recite “detect a second calendar associated with the user; detect a second user habit occurring in the second calendar, wherein the second user habit is not detected in the first calendar associated with the user; and automatically schedule the second user habit in the first calendar by automatically blocking time for the second user habit in the first calendar associated with the user,” “receive an additional user event or user habit associated with the user, wherein the additional user event or user habit is not detected in the first calendar associated with the user; determine a priority level of the additional user event or a priority level of the user habit; and automatically schedule the additional user event in the first calendar associated with the user by automatically moving the user habit to a different time slot in the first calendar,” “automatically schedule the user habit by: determining the second time block is unavailable for blocking; determining a third time block, for the second week within the first calendar, for the user habit to occur based on the plurality of scheduling settings associated with the user habit and the second calendar characteristics corresponding to the second week within the first calendar, wherein the third time block is different than the second time block; and automatically scheduling the user habit in the first calendar by automatically blocking time during the third time block for the second week,” “receive an additional user event or user habit associated with the user, wherein the additional user event or user habit is not detected in the first calendar associated with the user; determine a priority level of the additional user event or user habit and a priority level of the user habit; and automatically decline the additional user event or user habit in the first calendar associated with the user without scheduling the additional user event or user habit in the first calendar,” “automatically schedule the second user event by: detecting the second user event associated with the user; generating a sync event by synching the second user event associated with the user to the first digital calendar associated with the user; and automatically scheduling the second user event by automatically blocking time for the second user event in the first digital calendar associated with the user corresponding to the sync event,” “detect a third habit in a third calendar associated with the user and a second attendee, wherein the third habit is not detected in the first calendar associated with the user; receive a user input to request a conversion of the third habit in the third calendar into a third habit associated with the first calendar; and automatically convert the third habit detected in the third calendar into a third habit associated with the first calendar,” “automatically schedule the third habit in the first calendar associated with the user according to a plurality of scheduling settings associated with the third habit without requiring the user to communicate with the second attendee,” “detect a change in the first calendar associated with the user; determine that the change creates a conflict with the third habit; and automatically rescheduling the third habit, according to the plurality of scheduling settings associated with the third habit, wherein the plurality of scheduling settings associated with the third habit include scheduling settings associated with the user and scheduling settings associated with the second attendee,” however these limitations cover organizing human activity since they flow directly from the schedule management involving human interaction, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), which is part of the same abstract idea as addressed in the independent claims that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea grouping. Accordingly, these steps are part of the same abstract idea(s) set forth in the independent claims. The additional elements recited in the dependent claims include: a second digital calendar (claims 2 and 12), and a third digital calendar (claims 8 and 18). However, each of these elements is recited at a high level of generality and fails to yield any discernible improvement to the computer or to any technology, nor set forth any additional function or result that provided meaningful limitation beyond linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., automated/computing environment), and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. When evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 are allowable over prior art. With respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 20 the closest prior art, Dotan, Hu et al., Cohen, Galloway et al., collectively teach features for receiving a user habit for scheduling with a first digital calendar associated with a user; automatically schedule the user habit in the first digital calendar by automatically blocking time during the first day and first time block for the first week, wherein the first time block is blocked without requiring the user to manually manipulate the first digital calendar associated with the user; detect, from an online event organization platform, a second user event associated with the user, wherein the second user event is not in the first digital calendar associated with the user, and wherein the online event organization platform is a non-calendar event organization platform; and automatically schedule the second user event detected from the online event organization platform in the first digital calendar associated with the user by automatically blocking time for the second user event in the first digital calendar associated with the user [See Office Action mailed 12/11/2024 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter].
With respect to independent claim 1, while Dotan describes identify a plurality of scheduling settings associated with the user habit (paragraphs 0105, 0110, 0112, 0114- 0115); and determine, for a first week within the first digital calendar, a first day and a first time block for the user habit to occur based on the plurality of scheduling settings associated with the user habit and the first calendar characteristics corresponding to the first week within the first digital calendar (paragraphs 0105, 0119, 0135), and Dikla Dotan-Cohen et al. Pub. No.: US 2018/0285827 A1 [hereinafter Dikla] describes determine, for a second week within the first digital calendar, a second day and a second time block for the user habit to occur based on the plurality of scheduling settings associated the user habit and second calendar characteristics corresponding to the second week within the first digital calendar, wherein the first day and the second day are on different weekdays and the first time block is different than the second time block (paragraph 0005, discussing computer technologies for the detection and tracking of instances of events with respect to users. The events can be analyzed with respect to one or more routines. For example, a routine may be identified as corresponding to a user based on patterns formed by detected events (e.g., the user drives to work around 1 PM during weekdays), corresponding to the user, that make up the routine; paragraph 0101, discussing that it will be appreciated that an event may be identified as out of routine based on a prediction of divergence from the routine. In this way, identification of out of routine events can be forward looking. A prediction of a divergence may be based on interpretive data, detected events, and one or more inferences as to future user actions or events. As an example, a user may usually go to the park every Tuesday but out of routine detector 218 may predict that the user may not walk in the park next (i.e., participate in this routine event) Tuesday [i.e., second week] based on a weather forecast indicating a high chance for rain on Tuesday. Another example is where the user is identified or detected at the park on a Monday and out of routine detector 218 predicts that the user may not visit the park the following Tuesday because the user's pattern indicates that the user typically visits or walks in the park only once per week), Dotan, Hu et al., Cohen, Galloway et al., Dikla., and the other prior art of record does not teach automatically, upon completion of the simulation phase, schedule the user habit in the first digital calendar according to the optimized time block configuration by automatically blocking time during the first day and the first time block for the first week and the second day and the second time block for the second week, wherein the first time block and the second time block are blocked without requiring the user to manually manipulate the first digital calendar associated with the user; and provide, for display within a calendar graphical user interface, the first digital calendar comprising the first time block in the first week, the second time block in the second week, and the second user event.
Dotan, Hu et al., Cohen, Galloway et al., Dikla., and the other prior art various approaches do not teach the specific scheduling process as required by amended claims 1, 11, and 20. For instance Dikla in paragraph 0159 describes a system that could support the idea of automatically scheduling the user habit into a calendar, specifically in relation to missing or deviating from a routine activity (such as a golf game), but does not disclose the specific process of automatically, upon completion of the simulation phase, schedule the user habit in the first digital calendar according to the optimized time block configuration by automatically blocking time during the first day and the first time block for the first week and the second day and the second time block for the second week, wherein the first time block and the second time block are blocked without requiring the user to manually manipulate the first digital calendar associated with the user. Paragraph 0105 of Dikla discusses the concept of identifying and tracking routine events and recognizing patterns, like a user playing golf every Tuesday evening. If the user misses this event, the system could suggest rescheduling the game based on the user's routine and available time slots. However, this does not teach or suggesting directly discuss the blocking of a specific day or time slot for the second week. In contrast, claim 1 recites a more intricate process including automatically, upon completion of the simulation phase, schedule the user habit in the first digital calendar according to the optimized time block configuration by automatically blocking time during the first day and first time block for the first week and the second day and the second time block for the second week, wherein the first time block and the second time block are blocked without requiring the user to manually manipulate the first digital calendar associated with the user. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are directed to allowable subject matter because the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach: “A system for intelligent calendar management, the system comprising: at least one processor; and a memory, coupled to the at least one processor, configured to store executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive a user habit for scheduling with a first digital calendar associated with a user; identify a plurality of scheduling settings associated with the user habit; execute a two-phase scheduling process that controls modification of the first digital calendar during automated scheduling by: executing a blocking phase by, utilizing the at least one processor, determining one or more candidate time blocks for the user habit based on the plurality of scheduling settings and first calendar characteristics corresponding to the first digital calendar, the blocking phase storing the one or more candidate time blocks as one or more temporarily blocked intervals without committing the one or more candidate time blocks as calendar entries to the first digital calendar; and executing a simulation phase, utilizing the at least one processor, to determine an optimized time block configuration by simulating concurrent scheduling scenarios across the one or more candidate time blocks while the first digital calendar remains unmodified; determine, for a first week within the first digital calendar, the optimized time block configuration including a first day and a first time block for the user habit to occur based on the plurality of scheduling settings associated with the user habit and the first calendar characteristics corresponding to the first week within the first digital calendar; determine, for a second week within the first digital calendar, the optimized time block configuration including a second day and a second time block for the user habit to occur based on the plurality of scheduling settings associated the user habit and second calendar characteristics corresponding to the second week within the first digital calendar, wherein the first day and the second day are on different weekdays and the first time block is different than the second time block; automatically, upon completion of the simulation phase, schedule the user habit in the first digital calendar according to the optimized time block configuration by automatically blocking time during the first day and the first time block for the first week and the second day and the second time block for the second week, wherein the first time block and the second time block are blocked without requiring the user to manually manipulate the first digital calendar associated with the user; detect, from an online event organization platform, a second user event associated with the user, wherein the second user event is not in the first digital calendar associated with the user, and wherein the online event organization platform is a non-calendar event organization platform; automatically schedule the second user event detected from the online event organization platform in the first digital calendar associated with the user by automatically blocking time for the second user event in the first digital calendar associated with the user; and provide, for display within a calendar graphical user interface, the first digital calendar comprising the first time block in the first week, the second time block in the second week, and the second user event,” as recited in amended claim 1 (and as similarly encompassed by independent claims 11 and 20), thus rendering claims 1-2, 4-12, and 14-20 as allowable over prior art. However, these claims are not allowable because they remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Comerford et al., Pub. No.: US 2015/0058056 A1 – describes systems and methods for streamlining scheduling.
Jiakai, Xu, Zhou Wen, and Cen Gang. "Design of Intelligent Personal Schedule Management System." 2019 14th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE). IEEE, 2019 – analyzes the basic functions of the schedule management software, and proposes the design and improvement of the intelligent management personal schedule system for its single and inefficient schedule management method.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. 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 M. Epstein can be reached on (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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights