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 10/24/25.
Claims 1-3, 10, 12, 16 and 18 are amended
Claim 5 is cancelled
Claim 21 is newly added
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 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 1-4, 6-9 and 21 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 10-15 is/are directed to a device/apparatus which is a statutory category.
Step One - First, pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance on 84 Fed. Reg. 53, the claims 16-20 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 “accessing a data structure in a data store to determine a connection between the first user and a second user based on a user attribute associated with the second user, wherein the data structure includes at least one of an organizational chart, a favorite contacts list, a notification breakthrough list, or memberships to a chat channel, and wherein the data structure indicates relationships that are based on event scheduling; wherein the connection includes at least one of: the first user being senior to the second user in an organization based on the organizational chart, the first user and the second user belonging to a same team based on the organizational chart, the second user being in the favorite contacts list, or the first user and the second user being members of a same chat channel; receiving, trained with past event information, a prediction of event detail relevance for the second user based on the connection; and including data samples representing past event information including at least one of attendance of a past event by a user indicated in the data structure or speaking during a past event by a user indicated in the data structure, and wherein the prediction determines which specific event details from among a date, a time, a title. a location, a list of invitees, and content are relevant to the second user; and changing the security configuration to grant access to an event detail of the changing the security configuration based on the prediction and the connection to grant access to an event detail of the first event details and to grant access to a different event detail of the second event details with the second user.”
These claim limitations belong to the grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” because the claims are related to solving inefficiencies in the existing system of sharing schedules or calendars, where some users might not have access to another user’s calendar to know the details of events, such as the title, the location, and/or the list of invitees for the event, unless such permission is granted. This may cause difficulty for the users to schedule events, such as by not knowing whether one event is more important than another. The current application is also trying to help prevent suffering from requiring individual owners to find out how permissions can be granted to users and performing multiple steps to grant such permissions (See specification [0014]). As such, the current application is looking to solve user frustration with how calendar and schedules are shared with other users who may be pertinent to a situation, project, event, etc. Managing calendar or schedule sharing 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).
Independent Claims 10 and 16 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 recites additional elements: “A method, comprising: An apparatus, comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:, A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: An apparatus, comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:, A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: applying a security configuration to a digital calendar corresponding to a first user, the digital calendar being maintained by calendar software to include a first event and a second event, the first event having first event details including a date for the first event and a time for the first event, and the second event having second event details, wherein access to the first event details and the second event details are limited to the first user by the security configuration; on the digital calendar; from a machine learning model; wherein the machine learning model is trained using a training data set, to a device associated” 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).
Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, claims 1, 10 and 16 do not provide any specifics regarding the integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Similarly dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-21 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 2 “wherein changing the security configuration comprises: (i) for the first event, granting access to only a subset of the first event details while denying access to other first event details, and (ii) for the second event, granting access to only a different subset of the second event details while denying access to other second event details, such that the second user has access to different types of information for the first event than for the second event” are also directed to an abstract idea. 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 because they further the limitations of the independent claim which are directed to a method of organizing human activity. In addition, no additional elements are integrated to into the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims still recite an abstract idea that can be grouped into a method of organizing human activity.
Dependent claim 4, recite: “wherein the machine learning model is trained using past event information including an invitee of a past event.” Dependent claim 21, recite: “wherein receiving the prediction from the machine learning model comprises: providing, to the machine learning model, input data including the connection between the first user and the second user and data relating to the first event and the second event; and receiving, from the machine learning model, output data indicating, for each of the first event and the second event, which specific event details from among the date, the time, the title, the location, the list of invitees, and the content are predicted to be relevant to the second user based on the connection.” Both of the above limitations recite “a machine learning model”, which are not directed to additional abstract ideas, but are directed to an additional non-abstract claim element. Using a machine learning model is considered a “particular technological environment “MPEP 2106.05h” at step 2A, Prong 2 as it’s just used to display data and the technology is not improved and is merely used as a tool to perform an abstract idea at Step 2B. Therefore, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-21 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: An apparatus, comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:, A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: An apparatus, comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:, A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: applying a security configuration to a digital calendar corresponding to a first user, the digital calendar being maintained by calendar software to include a first event and a second event, the first event having first event details including a date for the first event and a time for the first event, and the second event having second event details, wherein access to the first event details and the second event details are limited to the first user by the security configuration; on the digital calendar; from a machine learning model; wherein the machine learning model is trained using a training data set, to a device associated” are insufficient to amount to significantly more. Applicants originally submitted specification describes the computer components above at least in page/ paragraph [0019]-[0022], [0047]-[0050].
Also, regarding “machine learning model” is shown in the originally submitted specification is described at least in page/ paragraph [0065]-[0067], [0070]-[0075].
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 additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as performing repetitive calculations, Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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 10 and 16 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 2-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-21 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, 10 and 16. As a result, Examiner asserts that dependent claims, such as dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 11-15, and 17-21 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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishna et al. (US 2014/0149771), and further in view of Beran et al. (US 20150142895 A1) and Lightbody et al. (US 2022/0398546).
As per claims 1, 10 and 16: Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna shows:
A method, comprising:
applying a security configuration to a digital calendar corresponding to a first user, the digital calendar being maintained by calendar software to include a first event and a second event, the first event having first event details including a date for the first event and a time for the first event, and the second event having second event details, wherein access to the first event details and the second event details are limited to the first user by the security configuration (Krishna: [0147]: For example, the calendar module 286 receives a request from the user to create an event "Staff Meeting" in a time slot between "10 AM" and "11 AM" on a "Tuesday". In one embodiment, the calendar module 286 receives a list of attendees from the user via the workflow engine 201 to be associated with the event. The user creates a list of attendees by inviting the attendees to the event using a name, a user identifier, an employee identifier, etc. For example, a team leader can invite members in an engineering department to attend the event "Staff Meeting". In one embodiment, the calendar module 286 generates an access control list for the calendar event based on the list of attendees and stores the access control list in the data storage 268. In another embodiment, the calendar module 286 sends the access control list to the workflow engine 201 in the enterprise service bus 107. The workflow engine 201 sends the access control list to the device management engine 203 for determining devices associated with people in the access control list.);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna shows:
accessing a data structure in a data store to determine a connection between the first user and a second user based on a user attribute associated with the second user, wherein the data structure includes at least one of an organizational chart, a favorite contacts list, a notification breakthrough list, or memberships to a chat channel, and wherein the data structure indicates relationships that are based on event scheduling on the digital calendar
Krishna: [0147]: For example, the calendar module 286 receives a request from the user to create an event "Staff Meeting" in a time slot between "10 AM" and "11 AM" on a "Tuesday". In one embodiment, the calendar module 286 receives a list of attendees from the user via the workflow engine 201 to be associated with the event. The user creates a list of attendees by inviting the attendees to the event using a name, a user identifier, an employee identifier, etc. For example, a team leader can invite members in an engineering department to attend the event "Staff Meeting". In one embodiment, the calendar module 286 generates an access control list for the calendar event based on the list of attendees and stores the access control list in the data storage 268. In another embodiment, the calendar module 286 sends the access control list to the workflow engine 201 in the enterprise service bus 107. The workflow engine 201 sends the access control list to the device management engine 203 for determining devices associated with people in the access control list. [0060]: The enterprise service bus 107 also calls methods contained in the code on the NAaaS application services 106 that implement the services. For example, the enterprise service bus 107 instructs the NAaaS application services to authenticate users, log device usage entries, store media, analyze media, index keywords related to users' skills and search a database for user profiles that include skills that match a user query. [0081]: the workflow engine 201 receives a request from a user device 102 for one of the collaborative computing devices 103 to project an image. The workflow engine 201 authenticates the user associated with the user device 102 by interacting with the user management service 210 that is part of the NAaaS application services 106, instructing the device usage analytics service 212 to log the command, a user identifier for the user associated with the user device 102, the date and time of the request and the IP address of the user device 102, copying the image that the user sent to the repository by interacting with the media repository services 206, performing optical character recognition of the image and indexing keywords in the image by interacting with the media analysis service 208 and transmits the image to the collaborative computing device 103 for projection. [0094] In one embodiment, the device management engine 203 receives an access control list for a calendar event from the workflow engine 201 and determines the one or more user devices 102 associated with the people participating in the calendar event. The device management engine 203 determines the one or more user devices 102 by querying the device inventory service 265 using the access control list. For example, the device management engine 203 uses the user identifiers in the access control list and queries the device inventory service 265 for a list of devices associated with the users participating in the calendar event. The device inventory service 265 provides the device management engine 203 with a list of device identifiers for the one or more user devices 102 associated with the users participating in the calendar event. [0096] In one embodiment, when all the users in the access control list are determined to be present at the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification that suggest to start the calendar event. In another embodiment, when at least one user in the access control list is absent from the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification to delay the start of the event.
Krishna shows “wherein the data structure includes at least one of an organizational chart, a favorite contacts list, a notification breakthrough list, or memberships to a chat channel”: [0011]: The enterprise service bus instructs the NAaaS application services to identify one or more types of devices in a network, register the one or more types of devices for use in the network by assigning an IP address and a name to each device and add the IP addresses to a list of IP addresses. The enterprise service bus is configured to generate a first list of one or more devices for a first device, receive a selection of a second device in the first list from a user associated with the first device, generate a second list that includes functions associated with the selection from the user, receive a request from the first device to perform one of the functions in the second list, translate a first communication protocol of the request received from the first device into a second communication protocol used by the second device to create a translated request, translate a first message format of the request into a second message format and transmit the translated request to the second device. In another embodiment, the NAaaS application services are further configured to identify a location of a first device in a network and providing the enterprise service bus with the first list of one or more devices within a set distance of the location of the first device.); and
Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Lightbody shows:
wherein the connection includes at least one of: the first user being senior to the second user in an organization based on the organizational chart, the first user and the second user belonging to a same team based on the organizational chart, the second user being in the favorite contacts list, or the first user and the second user being members of a same chat channel; and
Krishna shows in [0119]: The user management service 211 detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user. This reads on “using past event information including an invitee of a past event, to select the event detail.” Krishna shows [0138]: For example, the indexing service 287 identifies a device identifier associated with the projector that projected the slides and creates a database index that holds the device identifier and a pointer pointing to a location where the slides related to that device identifier are stored. In yet another embodiment, the indexing service 287 identifies metadata with a low-cardinality (e.g., current employee, former employee, junior employee, senior employee, etc.). For example, the indexing service 287 identifies that the slides were projected by an employee who is a junior employee and creates a database index that holds the expertise level and a pointer pointing to a location where the slides related to that expertise level are stored.
However, Krishna does not explicitly show “machine learning model”. Reference Beran also does not show the above limitation.
Reference Lightbody shows the above limitations at least in: [0064] In some embodiments, the fairly complex assignment scheduling logic 242 may include a machine learning algorithm that determines to schedule events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users.
Reference Krishna and Reference Lightbody are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of online calendar management. Also, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Lightbody, particularly the use of machine learning models to help facilitate calendar and event management [0064], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the user management service detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user [0119], in order to provide for a system that schedules events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users as taught by Reference Lightbody (see at least in [0064]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Lightbody for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Lightbody, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Lightbody shows:
receiving, from a machine learning model trained with past event information, a prediction of event detail relevance for the second user based on the connection; and
Krishna shows in [0119]: The user management service 211 detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user. This reads on “using past event information including an invitee of a past event, to select the event detail.” However, Krishna does not explicitly show “machine learning model”. Reference Beran also does not show the above limitation.
Reference Lightbody shows the above limitations at least in: [0064] In some embodiments, the fairly complex assignment scheduling logic 242 may include a machine learning algorithm that determines to schedule events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users.
Reference Krishna and Reference Lightbody are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of online calendar management. Also, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Lightbody, particularly the use of machine learning models to help facilitate calendar and event management [0064], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the user management service detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user [0119], in order to provide for a system that schedules events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users as taught by Reference Lightbody (see at least in [0064]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Lightbody for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Lightbody, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A);
Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Beran and Lightbody shows:
wherein the machine learning model is trained using a training data set including data samples representing past event information including at least one of attendance of a past event by a user indicated in the data structure or speaking during a past event by a user indicated in the data structure, and
wherein the prediction determines which specific event details from among a date, a time, a title. a location, a list of invitees, and content are relevant to the second user; and
Applicants originally submitted specification shows the above limitation at least in [0019]: the system may determine the connection between the first user and the second user based on the user attribute associated with the first user and/or the user attribute associated with the second user. For example, the connection could include the first user being senior to or subordinate to a second user in an organization, the first user and the second user belonging to a same team, department, or project in the organization, or the first user and the second user having a personal, familial, or business relationship. The system may use the connection to configure one or more rules for determining access to one or more event details of an event on the calendar for the second user. The system may change the security configuration to grant access to the one or more event details to a device associated with the second user based on the connection between the first user and the second user. Changing the security configuration may enable an output of the event detail to the device associated with the second user. As a result, the owner of a calendar may allow access to particular event details to one or more users while reducing the burden on the owner of individually managing permissions for the one or more users.
Krishna shows in [0094] In one embodiment, the device management engine 203 receives an access control list for a calendar event from the workflow engine 201 and determines the one or more user devices 102 associated with the people participating in the calendar event. The device management engine 203 determines the one or more user devices 102 by querying the device inventory service 265 using the access control list. For example, the device management engine 203 uses the user identifiers in the access control list and queries the device inventory service 265 for a list of devices associated with the users participating in the calendar event. The device inventory service 265 provides the device management engine 203 with a list of device identifiers for the one or more user devices 102 associated with the users participating in the calendar event. [0096] In one embodiment, when all the users in the access control list are determined to be present at the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification that suggest to start the calendar event. In another embodiment, when at least one user in the access control list is absent from the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification to delay the start of the event. [0116]-[0119]: shows authenticating login credentials of a user. Here, Krishna shows the ability to grant access to a particular user for a meeting based on the user being on an access list provided by the user initiating the meeting. For instance, a team manager providing a list of his team employees attending the meeting is the list used to determine and authenticate the user wanting to attend the meeting.
However, Krishna does not explicitly show if there are any changes being made to the original meeting configuration as is recited in the claim limitation. Krishna shows in [0119]: The user management service 211 detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user. This reads on “using past event information including an invitee of a past event, to select the event detail.” However, Krishna does not explicitly show “machine learning model”. Reference Beran also does not show the above limitation.
Reference Lightbody shows the above limitations at least in: [0064] In some embodiments, the fairly complex assignment scheduling logic 242 may include a machine learning algorithm that determines to schedule events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users.
Reference Krishna and Reference Lightbody are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of online calendar management. Also, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Lightbody, particularly the use of machine learning models to help facilitate calendar and event management [0064], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the user management service detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user [0119], in order to provide for a system that schedules events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users as taught by Reference Lightbody (see at least in [0064]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Lightbody for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Lightbody, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Reference Krishna and Reference Beran are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of online calendar management. Also, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Beran, particularly the sharing event details with a particular attendee based on the attendee’s location or proximity [0019], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the ability to verify an attendees identity and grant the attendee access to the meeting [0094], in order to provide for a system that enables meetings to be dynamically scheduled, thus making efficient use of a user's time and resources as taught by Reference Beran (see at least in [0013]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Beran for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Beran, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Further, Reference Krishna and Beran do not explicitly show “based on the prediction and the connection”. Reference Lightbody shows estimating which reads on predicting in the claim at least in [0132] By integrating into Todoist, the intelligent calendar application may auto-schedule time to work on a user's to-dos so that the user can stay organized and better plan his/her work. For example, the integrated intelligent calendar application can automatically find and defend the best time to work on the project tasks that appeared in the Todoist. The intelligent calendar application's smart time blocking keeps the user's time aligned with the user's projects and priorities while keeping the user flexible for new events. In addition, by controlling how much time a user schedules for each task through simple time estimates or scheduling an hour for each task by default, a user can easily add, reduce, or break up time blocks through the integrated intelligent calendar application. In some embodiments, the integrated intelligent calendar application may automatically assign tasks to team members and automatically block time on their calendars so that the user can have fewer meetings and better communication around priorities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Lightbody, particularly the use of machine learning models to help facilitate calendar and event management [0064], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the user management service detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user [0119], in order to provide for a system that schedules events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users as taught by Reference Lightbody (see at least in [0064]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Lightbody for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Beran, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding the claim limitation “grant access to an event detail of the first event details and to grant access to a different event detail of the second event details to a device associated with the second user.” Reference Krishna shows the ability to modify event details and display event details for different events, Krishna does not explicitly show the details of this process. Reference Beran shows the details in [0075]: The availability information for these individuals can be monitored and regularly updated as described above and below. In at least some embodiments, meetings can be scheduled by using time portions from a meeting that is already scheduled for an individual in advance. When this happens, a notification can be sent to the original meeting requester notifying them that a requested meeting has been shortened for that particular party receiving the meeting request. In essence, this allows individuals to partially accept meetings. Step 510 generates notifications to the individuals that a meeting can take place. Any suitable notification can be generated and any suitable channel can be used to provide the notifications to the individuals. In at least some instances, these notifications can include one or more notifications of a partially accepted meeting. Step 512 sends the notifications to the individuals that a meeting can take place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Beran, particularly the sharing event details with a particular attendee based on the attendee’s location or proximity [0019], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the ability to verify an attendees identity and grant the attendee access to the meeting [0094], in order to provide for a system that enables meetings to be dynamically scheduled, thus making efficient use of a user's time and resources as taught by Reference Beran (see at least in [0013]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Beran for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Beran, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Beran and Lightbody shows:
changing the security configuration based on the prediction and the connection to grant access to an event detail of the changing the security configuration based on the prediction and the connection to grant access to an event detail of the first event details and to grant access to a different event detail of the second event details to a device associated with the second user.
Applicants originally submitted specification shows the above limitation at least in [0019]: the system may determine the connection between the first user and the second user based on the user attribute associated with the first user and/or the user attribute associated with the second user. For example, the connection could include the first user being senior to or subordinate to a second user in an organization, the first user and the second user belonging to a same team, department, or project in the organization, or the first user and the second user having a personal, familial, or business relationship. The system may use the connection to configure one or more rules for determining access to one or more event details of an event on the calendar for the second user. The system may change the security configuration to grant access to the one or more event details to a device associated with the second user based on the connection between the first user and the second user. Changing the security configuration may enable an output of the event detail to the device associated with the second user. As a result, the owner of a calendar may allow access to particular event details to one or more users while reducing the burden on the owner of individually managing permissions for the one or more users.
Krishna shows in [0094] In one embodiment, the device management engine 203 receives an access control list for a calendar event from the workflow engine 201 and determines the one or more user devices 102 associated with the people participating in the calendar event. The device management engine 203 determines the one or more user devices 102 by querying the device inventory service 265 using the access control list. For example, the device management engine 203 uses the user identifiers in the access control list and queries the device inventory service 265 for a list of devices associated with the users participating in the calendar event. The device inventory service 265 provides the device management engine 203 with a list of device identifiers for the one or more user devices 102 associated with the users participating in the calendar event. [0096] In one embodiment, when all the users in the access control list are determined to be present at the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification that suggest to start the calendar event. In another embodiment, when at least one user in the access control list is absent from the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification to delay the start of the event. [0116]-[0119]: shows authenticating login credentials of a user. Here, Krishna shows the ability to grant access to a particular user for a meeting based on the user being on an access list provided by the user initiating the meeting. For instance, a team manager providing a list of his team employees attending the meeting is the list used to determine and authenticate the user wanting to attend the meeting. This reasonably reads on “to grant access to an event detail of the changing the security configuration based on the prediction and the connection to grant access to an event detail of the first event details and to grant access to a different event detail of the second event details to a device associated with the second user”.
However, Krishna does not explicitly show if there are any changes being made to the original meeting configuration as is recited in the claim limitation: “to grant access to an event detail of the changing the security configuration based on the prediction and the connection to grant access to an event detail of the first event details and to grant access to a different event detail of the second event details to a device associated with the second user”. As such, Krishna does not explicitly show “changing the security configuration” in the claim limitation above.
The terms “changing the security configuration” Reference Beran shows the above limitations at least in: [0019] To accommodate dynamic schedules, and in accordance with one or more embodiments, a meeting request referred to herein as a "flex-meeting" request is presented. Unlike regular calendar items, some flex-meeting requests do not necessarily have set beginning and end dates or times. Rather, flex-meeting requests can have an expiration date/time. Similarly, in at least some embodiments, the location of the meeting does not have to be specified beforehand. For example, the meeting location can be set as an attendee's location--which can vary during the course of the day. As such, the inventive system uses availability data and the information (i.e. real life presence information) provided in the flex-meeting requests to help schedule meetings in a manner that utilizes an individual's time more efficiently. Here, the granting access to an attendee to meeting details based on his/her location or proximity reads on “changing the security configuration” based on the description of the above limitation in the specification.
Reference Krishna and Reference Beran are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of online calendar management. Also, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Beran, particularly the sharing event details with a particular attendee based on the attendee’s location or proximity [0019], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the ability to verify an attendees identity and grant the attendee access to the meeting [0094], in order to provide for a system that enables meetings to be dynamically scheduled, thus making efficient use of a user's time and resources as taught by Reference Beran (see at least in [0013]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Beran for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Beran, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Further, Reference Krishna and Beran do not explicitly show “based on the prediction and the connection”. Reference Lightbody shows estimating which reads on predicting in the claim at least in [0132] By integrating into Todoist, the intelligent calendar application may auto-schedule time to work on a user's to-dos so that the user can stay organized and better plan his/her work. For example, the integrated intelligent calendar application can automatically find and defend the best time to work on the project tasks that appeared in the Todoist. The intelligent calendar application's smart time blocking keeps the user's time aligned with the user's projects and priorities while keeping the user flexible for new events. In addition, by controlling how much time a user schedules for each task through simple time estimates or scheduling an hour for each task by default, a user can easily add, reduce, or break up time blocks through the integrated intelligent calendar application. In some embodiments, the integrated intelligent calendar application may automatically assign tasks to team members and automatically block time on their calendars so that the user can have fewer meetings and better communication around priorities.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Lightbody, particularly the use of machine learning models to help facilitate calendar and event management [0064], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the user management service detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user [0119], in order to provide for a system that schedules events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users as taught by Reference Lightbody (see at least in [0064]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Lightbody for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Beran, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding the claim limitation “grant access to an event detail of the first event details and to grant access to a different event detail of the second event details to a device associated with the second user.” Reference Krishna shows the ability to modify event details and display event details for different events, Krishna does not explicitly show the details of this process. Reference Beran shows the details in [0075]: The availability information for these individuals can be monitored and regularly updated as described above and below. In at least some embodiments, meetings can be scheduled by using time portions from a meeting that is already scheduled for an individual in advance. When this happens, a notification can be sent to the original meeting requester notifying them that a requested meeting has been shortened for that particular party receiving the meeting request. In essence, this allows individuals to partially accept meetings. Step 510 generates notifications to the individuals that a meeting can take place. Any suitable notification can be generated and any suitable channel can be used to provide the notifications to the individuals. In at least some instances, these notifications can include one or more notifications of a partially accepted meeting. Step 512 sends the notifications to the individuals that a meeting can take place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Beran, particularly the sharing event details with a particular attendee based on the attendee’s location or proximity [0019], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the ability to verify an attendees identity and grant the attendee access to the meeting [0094], in order to provide for a system that enables meetings to be dynamically scheduled, thus making efficient use of a user's time and resources as taught by Reference Beran (see at least in [0013]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Beran for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Beran, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 2: Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Beran and Lightbody shows:
wherein changing the security configuration comprises: (i) for the first event, granting access to only a subset of the first event details while denying access to other first event details, and (ii) for the second event, granting access to only a different subset of the second event details while denying access to other second event details, such that the second user has access to different types of information for the first event than for the second event. (Krishna shows: [0011]: The enterprise service bus instructs the NAaaS application services to identify one or more types of devices in a network, register the one or more types of devices for use in the network by assigning an IP address and a name to each device and add the IP addresses to a list of IP addresses. The enterprise service bus is configured to generate a first list of one or more devices for a first device, receive a selection of a second device in the first list from a user associated with the first device, generate a second list that includes functions associated with the selection from the user, receive a request from the first device to perform one of the functions in the second list, translate a first communication protocol of the request received from the first device into a second communication protocol used by the second device to create a translated request, translate a first message format of the request into a second message format and transmit the translated request to the second device. In another embodiment, the NAaaS application services are further configured to identify a location of a first device in a network and providing the enterprise service bus with the first list of one or more devices within a set distance of the location of the first device.).
Regarding the claim limitation “grant access to an event detail of the first event details and to grant access to a different event detail of the second event details to a device associated with the second user.” Reference Krishna shows the ability to modify event details and display event details for different events, Krishna does not explicitly show the details of this process. Reference Beran shows the details in [0075]: The availability information for these individuals can be monitored and regularly updated as described above and below. In at least some embodiments, meetings can be scheduled by using time portions from a meeting that is already scheduled for an individual in advance. When this happens, a notification can be sent to the original meeting requester notifying them that a requested meeting has been shortened for that particular party receiving the meeting request. In essence, this allows individuals to partially accept meetings. Step 510 generates notifications to the individuals that a meeting can take place. Any suitable notification can be generated and any suitable channel can be used to provide the notifications to the individuals. In at least some instances, these notifications can include one or more notifications of a partially accepted meeting. Step 512 sends the notifications to the individuals that a meeting can take place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Beran, particularly the sharing event details with a particular attendee based on the attendee’s location or proximity [0019], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the ability to verify an attendees identity and grant the attendee access to the meeting [0094], in order to provide for a system that enables meetings to be dynamically scheduled, thus making efficient use of a user's time and resources as taught by Reference Beran (see at least in [0013]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Beran for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Beran, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 3: Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Beran and Lightbody shows:
wherein the user attribute includes a network or domain corresponding to the device used by the second user ([0011]: The enterprise service bus instructs the NAaaS application services to identify one or more types of devices in a network, register the one or more types of devices for use in the network by assigning an IP address and a name to each device and add the IP addresses to a list of IP addresses. The enterprise service bus is configured to generate a first list of one or more devices for a first device, receive a selection of a second device in the first list from a user associated with the first device, generate a second list that includes functions associated with the selection from the user, receive a request from the first device to perform one of the functions in the second list, translate a first communication protocol of the request received from the first device into a second communication protocol used by the second device to create a translated request, translate a first message format of the request into a second message format and transmit the translated request to the second device. In another embodiment, the NAaaS application services are further configured to identify a location of a first device in a network and providing the enterprise service bus with the first list of one or more devices within a set distance of the location of the first device.).
As per claims 4, 11 and 17: Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Beran and Lightbody shows:
wherein the machine learning model is trained using past event information including an invitee of a past event.
Krishna shows in [0119]: The user management service 211 detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user. This reads on “using past event information including an invitee of a past event, to select the event detail.” However, Krishna does not explicitly show “machine learning model”. Reference Beran also does not show the above limitation.
Reference Lightbody shows the above limitations at least in: [0064] In some embodiments, the fairly complex assignment scheduling logic 242 may include a machine learning algorithm that determines to schedule events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users.
Reference Krishna and Reference Lightbody are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of online calendar management. Also, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Lightbody, particularly the use of machine learning models to help facilitate calendar and event management [0064], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the user management service detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user [0119], in order to provide for a system that schedules events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users as taught by Reference Lightbody (see at least in [0064]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Lightbody for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Beran, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claims 12 and 18: Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Beran and Lightbody shows:
Wherein changing the security configuration comprises: (i) for the first event, granting access to only a subset of the first event details while denying access to other first event details, and (ii) for the second event, granting access to only a different subset of the second event details while denying access to other second event details, such that the second user has access to different types of information for the first event than for the second event.
Krishna shows in [0119]: The user management service 211 detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user. This reads on “using past event information including an invitee of a past event, to select the event detail.” However, Krishna does not explicitly show “machine learning model”. Reference Beran also does not show the above limitation.
Reference Lightbody shows the above limitations at least in: [0064] In some embodiments, the fairly complex assignment scheduling logic 242 may include a machine learning algorithm that determines to schedule events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users.
Reference Krishna and Reference Lightbody are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of online calendar management. Also, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Lightbody, particularly the use of machine learning models to help facilitate calendar and event management [0064], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the user management service detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user [0119], in order to provide for a system that schedules events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users as taught by Reference Lightbody (see at least in [0064]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Lightbody for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Beran, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding the claim limitation “grant access to an event detail of the first event details and to grant access to a different event detail of the second event details to a device associated with the second user.” Reference Krishna shows the ability to modify event details and display event details for different events, Krishna does not explicitly show the details of this process. Reference Beran shows the details in [0075]: The availability information for these individuals can be monitored and regularly updated as described above and below. In at least some embodiments, meetings can be scheduled by using time portions from a meeting that is already scheduled for an individual in advance. When this happens, a notification can be sent to the original meeting requester notifying them that a requested meeting has been shortened for that particular party receiving the meeting request. In essence, this allows individuals to partially accept meetings. Step 510 generates notifications to the individuals that a meeting can take place. Any suitable notification can be generated and any suitable channel can be used to provide the notifications to the individuals. In at least some instances, these notifications can include one or more notifications of a partially accepted meeting. Step 512 sends the notifications to the individuals that a meeting can take place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Beran, particularly the sharing event details with a particular attendee based on the attendee’s location or proximity [0019], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the ability to verify an attendees identity and grant the attendee access to the meeting [0094], in order to provide for a system that enables meetings to be dynamically scheduled, thus making efficient use of a user's time and resources as taught by Reference Beran (see at least in [0013]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Beran for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Beran, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claims 6, 13 and 19: Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Beran and Lightbody shows:
further comprising:
assigning a weight to the second user based on the user attribute (Krishna shows [0195] If at least one of the one or more devices is not absent from the venue, the device management engine 203 instructs the notification service 269 to suggest 2206 to start the event. In some embodiments, the device management engine 203 checks the identity of the user associated with the device that is absent. If the presence of the user is not important to the event, the device management engine 203 instructs the notification service 269 to suggest 2206 to start the event. For example, as referenced in FIG. 21, the user that created the event specifies mandatory attendance for some of the attendees and optional attendance for other attendees. If the user is one of the optional attendees, the event can start. Here, the determination of the importance of the attendee to the meeting reads on the above limitation); and
Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Beran and Lightbody shows:
changing the event detail, wherein the weight gives the second user a preference over another user to change the event detail (Krishna shows [0195] If at least one of the one or more devices is not absent from the venue, the device management engine 203 instructs the notification service 269 to suggest 2206 to start the event. In some embodiments, the device management engine 203 checks the identity of the user associated with the device that is absent. If the presence of the user is not important to the event, the device management engine 203 instructs the notification service 269 to suggest 2206 to start the event. For example, as referenced in FIG. 21, the user that created the event specifies mandatory attendance for some of the attendees and optional attendance for other attendees. If the user is one of the optional attendees, the event can start. Here, the determination of the importance of the attendee to the meeting reads on the above limitation).
As per claims 7, 14 and 20: Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Beran and Lightbody shows:
further comprising:
granting access to the event detail to multiple users indicated in the data structure based on the multiple users sharing the user attribute (Krishna shows in [0094] In one embodiment, the device management engine 203 receives an access control list for a calendar event from the workflow engine 201 and determines the one or more user devices 102 associated with the people participating in the calendar event. The device management engine 203 determines the one or more user devices 102 by querying the device inventory service 265 using the access control list. For example, the device management engine 203 uses the user identifiers in the access control list and queries the device inventory service 265 for a list of devices associated with the users participating in the calendar event. The device inventory service 265 provides the device management engine 203 with a list of device identifiers for the one or more user devices 102 associated with the users participating in the calendar event. [0096] In one embodiment, when all the users in the access control list are determined to be present at the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification that suggest to start the calendar event. In another embodiment, when at least one user in the access control list is absent from the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification to delay the start of the event. [0116]-[0119]: shows authenticating login credentials of a user. Here, Krishna shows the ability to grant access to a particular user for a meeting based on the user being on an access list provided by the user initiating the meeting. For instance, a team manager providing a list of his team employees attending the meeting is the list used to determine and authenticate the user wanting to attend the meeting).
As per claims 8 and 15: Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Beran and Lightbody shows:
“further comprising:
accessing the data structure to determine a connection between the first user and a third user based on a user attribute associated with the third user; and
changing the security configuration to grant access to a second event detail of the first event details to a device associated with the third user based on the connection between the first user and the third user, wherein changing the security configuration limits access to the second event detail so that the second user does not have access.”
Krishna shows in [0094] In one embodiment, the device management engine 203 receives an access control list for a calendar event from the workflow engine 201 and determines the one or more user devices 102 associated with the people participating in the calendar event. The device management engine 203 determines the one or more user devices 102 by querying the device inventory service 265 using the access control list. For example, the device management engine 203 uses the user identifiers in the access control list and queries the device inventory service 265 for a list of devices associated with the users participating in the calendar event. The device inventory service 265 provides the device management engine 203 with a list of device identifiers for the one or more user devices 102 associated with the users participating in the calendar event. [0096] In one embodiment, when all the users in the access control list are determined to be present at the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification that suggest to start the calendar event. In another embodiment, when at least one user in the access control list is absent from the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification to delay the start of the event. [0116]-[0119]: shows authenticating login credentials of a user. Here, Krishna shows the ability to grant access to a particular user for a meeting based on the user being on an access list provided by the user initiating the meeting. For instance, a team manager providing a list of his team employees attending the meeting is the list used to determine and authenticate the user wanting to attend the meeting. This reasonably reads on the limitations above.
However, Krishna does not explicitly show if there is a way to “changing the security configuration” in the claim limitation above. The terms “changing the security configuration”
Reference Beran shows the above limitations at least in: [0019] To accommodate dynamic schedules, and in accordance with one or more embodiments, a meeting request referred to herein as a "flex-meeting" request is presented. Unlike regular calendar items, some flex-meeting requests do not necessarily have set beginning and end dates or times. Rather, flex-meeting requests can have an expiration date/time. Similarly, in at least some embodiments, the location of the meeting does not have to be specified beforehand. For example, the meeting location can be set as an attendee's location--which can vary during the course of the day. As such, the inventive system uses availability data and the information (i.e. real life presence information) provided in the flex-meeting requests to help schedule meetings in a manner that utilizes an individual's time more efficiently. Here, the granting access to an attendee to meeting details based on his/her location or proximity reads on “changing the security configuration” based on the description of the above limitation in the specification.
Reference Krishna and Reference Beran are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of online calendar management. Also, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Beran, particularly the sharing event details with a particular attendee based on the attendee’s location or proximity [0019], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the ability to verify an attendees identity and grant the attendee access to the meeting [0094], in order to provide for a system that enables meetings to be dynamically scheduled, thus making efficient use of a user's time and resources as taught by Reference Beran (see at least in [0013]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Beran for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Beran, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
As per claim 9: Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Beran and Lightbody shows:
wherein the data structure indicates a group of users including the second user and indicates multiple user attributes associated with users in the group of users including the user attribute (Krishna shows in [0094] In one embodiment, the device management engine 203 receives an access control list for a calendar event from the workflow engine 201 and determines the one or more user devices 102 associated with the people participating in the calendar event. The device management engine 203 determines the one or more user devices 102 by querying the device inventory service 265 using the access control list. For example, the device management engine 203 uses the user identifiers in the access control list and queries the device inventory service 265 for a list of devices associated with the users participating in the calendar event. The device inventory service 265 provides the device management engine 203 with a list of device identifiers for the one or more user devices 102 associated with the users participating in the calendar event. [0096] In one embodiment, when all the users in the access control list are determined to be present at the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification that suggest to start the calendar event. In another embodiment, when at least one user in the access control list is absent from the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification to delay the start of the event. [0116]-[0119]: shows authenticating login credentials of a user. Here, Krishna shows the ability to grant access to a particular user for a meeting based on the user being on an access list provided by the user initiating the meeting. For instance, a team manager providing a list of his team employees attending the meeting is the list used to determine and authenticate the user wanting to attend the meeting).
As per claim 21: Regarding the claim limitations below, Krishna in view of Beran and Lightbody shows:
wherein receiving the prediction from the machine learning model comprises:
providing, to the machine learning model, input data including the connection between the first user and the second user and data relating to the first event and the second event; and
receiving, from the machine learning model, output data indicating, for each of the first event and the second event, which specific event details from among the date, the time, the title, the location, the list of invitees, and the content are predicted to be relevant to the second user based on the connection.
(Krishna shows in [0094] In one embodiment, the device management engine 203 receives an access control list for a calendar event from the workflow engine 201 and determines the one or more user devices 102 associated with the people participating in the calendar event. The device management engine 203 determines the one or more user devices 102 by querying the device inventory service 265 using the access control list. For example, the device management engine 203 uses the user identifiers in the access control list and queries the device inventory service 265 for a list of devices associated with the users participating in the calendar event. The device inventory service 265 provides the device management engine 203 with a list of device identifiers for the one or more user devices 102 associated with the users participating in the calendar event. [0096] In one embodiment, when all the users in the access control list are determined to be present at the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification that suggest to start the calendar event. In another embodiment, when at least one user in the access control list is absent from the venue, the device management engine 203 interacts with the notification service 269 to generate a notification to delay the start of the event. [0116]-[0119]: shows authenticating login credentials of a user. Here, Krishna shows the ability to grant access to a particular user for a meeting based on the user being on an access list provided by the user initiating the meeting. For instance, a team manager providing a list of his team employees attending the meeting is the list used to determine and authenticate the user wanting to attend the meeting.
Krishna shows in [0119]: The user management service 211 detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user. This reads on “using past event information including an invitee of a past event, to select the event detail.” Krishna shows [0138]: For example, the indexing service 287 identifies a device identifier associated with the projector that projected the slides and creates a database index that holds the device identifier and a pointer pointing to a location where the slides related to that device identifier are stored. In yet another embodiment, the indexing service 287 identifies metadata with a low-cardinality (e.g., current employee, former employee, junior employee, senior employee, etc.). For example, the indexing service 287 identifies that the slides were projected by an employee who is a junior employee and creates a database index that holds the expertise level and a pointer pointing to a location where the slides related to that expertise level are stored.
However, Krishna does not explicitly show “machine learning model”. Reference Beran also does not show the above limitation.
Reference Lightbody shows the above limitations at least in: [0064] In some embodiments, the fairly complex assignment scheduling logic 242 may include a machine learning algorithm that determines to schedule events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users.
Reference Krishna and Reference Lightbody are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because the references generally relate to field of online calendar management. Also, said references are filed before the effective filing date of the instant application; hence, said references are analogous prior-art references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application for AIA to provide the teachings of Reference Lightbody, particularly the use of machine learning models to help facilitate calendar and event management [0064], in the disclosure of Reference Krishna, particularly in the user management service detects a potentially fraudulent authentication by comparing the secondary information to historical authentication information of the user [0119], in order to provide for a system that schedules events with complex frequencies by learning from the previous scheduling patterns for similar events from the same user or different a large number of calendars of different users as taught by Reference Lightbody (see at least in [0064]), where upon the execution of the method and system of Reference Lightbody for meeting scheduling allows the process to be more efficient and effective.
Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar online calendar management field of endeavor, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Reference Krishna in view of Reference Lightbody, the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143 A).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amended claims.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicants argue on page(s) 9-12 of applicants remarks that “Amended claim 1 improves digital calendar security systems through intelligent, automated access control. Unlike conventional calendar systems that rely on manual permission management or all-or-nothing calendar sharing, the claimed invention uses external relationship data from organizational charts and chat systems, machine learning trained on behavioral patterns including attendance and speaking during events, and prediction of which specific event details are relevant to automatically configure permissions. The specification at paragraph [0014] explains that existing systems require owners to individually manage permissions. The claimed features address this technical problem by automatically determining relevant event details using ML predictions trained on behavioral data and configuring access permissions accordingly. The Office's assertion that the machine learning model is merely used as a "particular technological environment" fails to recognize the claim's specificity. The claim does not recite generic use of ML. It recites an ML model trained on specific behavioral data including attendance and speaking during past events by users indicated in external data structures, making specific predictions determining which specific event details from among date, time, title, location, invitees, and content are relevant, and triggering specific automated security responses changing configuration to grant access to different event details for different events. This specificity, coupled with the technological improvement to calendar security systems, integrates any judicial exception into a practical application.” (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #1
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of “A method, comprising: An apparatus, comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:, A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: An apparatus, comprising: a memory; and a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory to:, A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: applying a security configuration to a digital calendar corresponding to a first user, the digital calendar being maintained by calendar software to include a first event and a second event, the first event having first event details including a date for the first event and a time for the first event, and the second event having second event details, wherein access to the first event details and the second event details are limited to the first user by the security configuration; on the digital calendar; from a machine learning model; wherein the machine learning model is trained using a training data set, to a device associated” are insufficient to amount to significantly more. Applicants originally submitted specification describes the computer components above at least in page/ paragraph [0019]-[0022], [0047]-[0050].
Also, regarding applicants’ arguments above about machine learning are unpersuasive. The above limitations include a “machine learning model” is shown in the originally submitted specification is described at least in page/ paragraph [0065]-[0067], [0070]-[0075].
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 additional elements amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as performing repetitive calculations, Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
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.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicants argue on page(s) 10-13 of applicants remarks that “The recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board Ex parte DESJARDINS (Appeal 2024-000567) warns that "[e]xaminers should not evaluate AI claims at such a high level of generality" and that "[c]ategorically excluding AI innovations from patent protection" jeopardizes America's leadership in this technology. (Ex parte DESJARDINS, p. 9). The Decision further emphasizes that "§§ 102, 103 and 112 are the traditional and appropriate tools to limit patent protection." (id p. 10). The Examiner's characterization ignores the specific training data, specific prediction outputs, and specific automated security application recited in the claim. For at least the foregoing reasons, claim 1 and its dependent claims, and independent claims 10 and 16 and their dependent claims, are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection. Applicant accordingly requests that the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be reconsidered and withdrawn.” (see applicants remarks for more details).
Response to Argument #2
Applicants' arguments have been fully considered; however, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The ability to provide event details for first and second events is not a technological improvement. In fact, if a task (such as providing event details) can be performed for one event, it is reasonably understood to be able to perform it for multiple events.
The facts of the current application are different from Ex parte DESJARDINS. The additional elements as discussed above are recited at a high level of generality and as such are broadly interpreted to simply “apply it”. 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.
As is discussed in the prong 2B of the 101 rejection above, the amended claims are still abstract, because the additional elements are 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NPL Reference:
C. Bisdikian et al., "MultiMedia Digital Conferencing: A Web-enabled multimedia teleconferencing system," in IBM Journal of Research and Development, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 281-298, March 1998, doi: 10.1147/rd.422.0281.
Foreign Reference:
(EP 3502927 A1) Liu et al. Exemplary embodiments relate to improvements in digital assistants incorporating personalization based on social network data. Various aspects of the agent, such as the agent's voice, language style, and avatar may be personalized. Personalization may be applied to components of an agent's architecture (e.g., the virtual agent's language model, natural language generator, voice generation component, etc.). Moreover, by interfacing with the social network's social graph, the agent may be provided with information useful to performing certain tasks (e.g., a calendar for scheduling, food preferences for ordering tasks, etc.). An agent may be provided (and personalized) for a single user, or a group of users (e.g., a family). The agent can be personalized to anyone, which may allow (e.g.) for the agent to represent a celebrity or a person who is not currently available in interactions with others. Different agents can talk to each other, e.g. for purposes of scheduling meetings.
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
/PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624