DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed 02/03/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 17-24 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/03/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on pages 10-11 of the remarks that in light of the amendments, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the October 2019 Updated Guidance and under the analysis of claims under step 2A of the Alice framework, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the present claims are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process. Under the 2019 PEG, the “mental processes” grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Per the October 2019 Updated Guidance examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Applicant submits on page 11-12 of the remarks that the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-14, 17-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-5, 8-14, 17-24, the independent claims (claims 1, 9 and 18) are directed, in part, to a method and a system for overlaying calendar information of a user. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-5, 8 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process, claims 9-14, 17 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine and claims 18-24 are directed to a computer readable medium which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture. Therefore, the claims are eligible under Step 1. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to receiving, at a reduced availability service of a computing device, an indication to determine an availability of a target user during a time range of interest, wherein the indication is provided by an end user that is different from the target user; receiving, by the reduced availability service, calendar information for the time range of interest for the target user from a calendar service storing the calendar information of the target user, wherein the calendar information comprises at least one existing calendar event for the target user; performing, by the reduced availability service, an automated process comprising: generating an interval graph data structure for the time range of interest based on the calendar information for the target user; overlaying the calendar information onto the interval graph data structure; determining working hours for the target user, wherein the working hours define a start time and end time for a working day of the target user, and wherein the working hours are determined based on a time zone from which the target user is working, the time zone being determined based on geolocation data of a geolocation sensor of the computing device; overlaying the determined working hours onto the interval graph data structure; scanning the interval graph data structure to determine whether at least one free time interval is within the determined working hours; in response to scanning the interval graph data structure, identifying the at least one free time interval; determining the at least one free time interval is below an availability threshold defining an aggregate amount of time the target user is available during the time range of interest; determining the target user is working with reduced availability in the time range of interest; ranking a calendaring conflict corresponding to the reduced availability of the target user based on at least one of: a duration of the calendaring conflict; or a social proximity of the target user and the end user; and providing, to the end user, a notification about the reduced availability of the target user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claims recite additional elements: “computer”; “system”; “a reduced availability service of a computing device”; “processor”; “memory”; “computer readable medium”. These additional element in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 7B and related text, [0019-0020] and [0061-0062] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “Examples of client device(s) 102 include personal computers (PCs), mobile devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets, laptops, personal digital assistants (PDAs)), wearable devices (e.g., smart watches, smart eyewear, fitness trackers, smart clothing, body-mounted devices, head-mounted displays), and gaming consoles or devices, and Internet of Things (loT) devices. [0020] According to an example implementation, the client device(s) 102 provide the input data to the service environment 106 using network 114. Examples of the network 114 include a private area network (PAN), a local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), and the like. Although the network 114 is depicted as a single network, it is contemplated that the network 114 may represent several networks of similar or varying types; The computing device 600 may also have one or more input device(s) 612 such as a keyboard, a mouse, a pen, a sound input device, a touch input device, a camera, etc. The output device(s) 614 such as a display, speakers, a printer, etc. may also be included. The aforementioned devices are examples and others may be used. The computing device 600 may include one or more communication connections 616 allowing communications with other computing devices 618. Examples of suitable communication connections 616 include RF transmitter, receiver, and/or transceiver circuitry; universal serial bus (USB), parallel, and/or serial ports. The term computer readable media as used herein includes volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer readable instructions, data structures, or program modules. The system memory 604, the removable storage device 609, and the non-removable storage device 610 are all computer readable media examples (e.g., memory storage.) Computer readable media include random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other article of manufacture which can be used to store information and which can be accessed by the computing device 600. Any such computer readable media may be part of the computing device 600. Computer readable media does not include a carrier wave or other propagated data signal.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 8-14, 17-24 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above.
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625