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 Claims
This action is in reply to the remarks filed on 19 November 2025.
No claims have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 19 November 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, like Core Wireless, the instant application’s claims are directed to improvements in computer functionality or other technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Core Wireless was found patent eligible because the claims described a specified improved interface for small screens, not an abstract idea, solving a technical problem of slow navigation on small devices, by presenting limited, relevant data directed from a menu, thus improving the device’s function by increasing user efficiency, rather than just generic data presentation.
Applicant argues that the instant application’s claimed invention is directed to an improvement upon conventional methods and systems for schedule management. Schedule management is not a technical problem but is instead considered a business problem that exists outside of the realm of a specific technical implementation. The specification of the instant application does not identify the prior art of schedule management as being technically complex or having a particular technological inefficiency. Instead the specification describes a desire to support a user in determining a transportation means for moving to a destination as well as a schedule, neither of which constitute technological problems, but mere decision making business type problems that exist outside of a particular technological implementation.
The apparatus in the instant application’s claims is merely a configured processor that executes a program and stores the executable instructions. The use of a computer in a generalized fashion to increase efficiency, i.e. faster scheduling and decision making, does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claims (Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assur. Co, L87 F. 3d 1266 at 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012; Gottschalk V. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 at 67 (1972)). See also Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F. 3d. 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e. through the use of a computer for performing calculations/determinations. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F. 3d. 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010), see also Bancorp, 687 F. 3d at 1277-78.
Merely adding computer functionality to increase speed or efficiency to the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea, 2019 revised guidance at 55, see also Trading Techs. Int’l. Inc vs. IBS LLC, 921 F. 3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019). This invention makes scheduling and schedule management faster, not the computer itself or any particular technology. The system itself is not improved, instead the computer is merely used as a tool to perform or apply the abstract idea. The 101 rejection is respectfully maintained.
Regarding the 103 rejection, applicant argues that Matsumoto, “Ref 2” fails to teach a second day schedule suggestion means, particularly with the capability to confirming the determination suggestion day schedule with the participant except the user, as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Matsumoto Ref 2 in at least [116] describes how a traveler may confirm the content of reservation, when requirement instructions of a travel advisory are input, a portable terminal will transmit a requirement of a travel advisory to the itinerary management server. The travel schedule management server transmits each reservation ID via the internet to a plurality of other servers and a vacant seat management server of each local service company. The travel schedule management server also receives reservation content information from other plurality of other servers of each local company via the internet. The examiner notes that the disclosed servers, whether they be for itinerary management, travel management, etc. were given their broadest reasonable interpretation and considered to be ‘participants except the user’ because the servers, in alternative to the mobile terminal of the traveler or user themselves, receive suggestions, other data and results. Lexicography was not invoked with regards to the participant and the broadest reasonable interpretation of the participant does not limit the participant to a particular user but instead could be any person or device that participates or interacts during the process. The 103 rejection is respectfully maintained below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” , “step”, or a generic placeholder in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation are the suggestion, registration, route change, position monitor and other means as well as the recited modules.
Because these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. They are being interpreted as software modules that are executable and part of the schedule management program.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 15 recite an apparatus and medium for schedule management comprises steps for determining a suggestion day schedule, generating a first day schedule suggestion for suggesting, a second day schedule suggestion for confirming, generating a day schedule notification and registering the suggestion day schedule. These limitations as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity because the claim recites a method for participant scheduling demonstrated by workflows or rules/instructions for scheduling where schedules are generated, responded to and notifications and registrations are done accordingly. The mere nominal recitation of a generic storage device, processor and program does not take the claim limitations out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims as a whole merely describes how to generally apply the concept of generating, providing and storing schedules and schedule approvals/confirmations in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing scheduling process. The “signal” language is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and is considered merely a representation of data. There is no signal control or signaling that is functionally or structurally significant, instead the label of signal is merely applied to any resultant data within the program. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A above, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of schedule management in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims amounts to significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-14 are dependent upon claim 1, include all the limitations of claim 1 and therefore recite the same abstract idea. The claims merely narrow the abstract idea by describing additional calculations, determinations/selections, data, indices, adjustments, receiving, conditions, destinations, budget estimation, action suggestions, reservations, and at least route changes. The additional elements claimed set forth a high level recitation of programs for applying the claimed instructions/executing the rules. Additionally the claims describe receiving, transmitting, monitoring which are considered insignificant extra solution activity because they recite high level data gathering and transmission. When reconsidered under step 2B these limitations are re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the apparatus is anything other than a generic off the shelf computer component that is applying instructions and the Symantec, TLI and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05d indicate that the mere collection, receipt and transmission of data over a network are well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner, as they are here.
For these reasons claims 1-15 are considered ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garret et al. (US 2014/0229099) in view of the machine translation of JP 2005044282 A, Matsumoto Shigeaki, herein after “Ref 2”.
As per Claim 1 Garrett teaches:
A schedule management apparatus comprising:
a storage device configured to store a schedule management program; and a processor configured to read out and execute the schedule management program (Garrett Fig. 1 Database 142 and at least [0026] illustrate and describe the location server which may include suitable logic, and or programs operable to provide location based services, store and or process location related information pertaining to communication devices in the system including mobile devices, information may be stored in a reference database as is described in at least [0033], the location based services enable device can include a cellular module, GNSS module, WLAN, Bluetooth NFC or host processor with memory),
wherein the schedule management program comprises: a first day-schedule suggestion means configured to determine, based on a registered schedule that is registered with respect to a set participant, a suggestion day-schedule that is a day-schedule to be suggested to the participant, and generate a first day-schedule suggestion signal for suggesting the determined suggestion day-schedule to a user included in the participant (Garrett in at least [0023] describes how each of the mobile devices may be operable to transmit and/or receive signals from devices such as those illustrated in at least Fig. 1, [0043 describes the location aware appointment management application that may observe pattern sin the user’s schedule and suggest predicted appointments based on the observed user behavior, based on the observed behavior the application may automatically add or make a suggestion to a user to add an appointment into the application);
Garret does not explicitly recite but Ref 2 further teaches schedule management including:
a second day-schedule suggestion means configured to generate, based on a first day-schedule answer signal that represents an approval to the suggestion day-schedule in response to the first day-schedule suggestion signal, a second day-schedule suggestion signal for confirming the determined suggestion day-schedule with the participant except the user (Ref 2 in at least [116] describes how a traveler may confirm the content of reservation, when requirement instructions of a travel advisory are input, a portable terminal will transmit a requirement of a travel advisory to the itinerary management server); and
a day-schedule registration means configured to generate, based on a second day- schedule answer signal that represents an approval to the suggestion day-schedule in response to the second day-schedule suggestion signal, a day-schedule notification signal that notifies the participant of the suggestion day-schedule, and register the suggestion day-schedule in the registered schedule of the participant (Ref 2 in at least [0077] the itinerary management server shows an example of the notification processing of operation information which notifies operation information such as a train delay to a portable terminal or server, see also [0134], [0090] describes the integrated reservation ID of one affair can be registered into member registration information, [0147], the traffic control server delivers the delay route ID and a delayed train ID to the itinerary management server of the delivery destination registered).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the schedule management that determines a suggestion day-schedule to include the techniques for generating a second suggestion for confirming the suggestion, requesting an approval and sending notification, then registering the suggestion day schedule because each of the elements were known, but not necessarily combined as claimed. The technical ability existed to combine the elements as claimed and the result of the combination is predictable because each of the elements performed the same function as they did individually. By requesting confirmation, receiving approve, sending notification and then registering, the combination enables an automated scheduling process that reduces errors through a specified authorization sequence.
As per Claim 2 Garrett further teaches:
wherein the storage device is further configured to store a day-schedule database in which a list of day-schedules is registered, wherein the first day-schedule suggestion means is configured to: calculate probabilities with respect to day-schedules registered in the day- schedule database; and select, based on the calculated probabilities, the suggestion day-schedule from the day-schedules registered in the day-schedule database (Garrett in at least [0046-0048] describes storing schedules in a database and the ability to determine the likelihood of appointments, routes, timing, etc.).
As per Claim 3 Garrett further teaches:
wherein data for indices with respect to each day-schedule is registered in the day- schedule database, and wherein the first day-schedule suggestion means is further configured to calculate, based on the data for indices, the probabilities with respect to the day-schedules registered in the day- schedule database (Garrett in at least [0046-0053] describes storing schedules in a database and the ability to determine the likelihood of appointments, routes, timing, etc. for different data).
As per Claim 4 Garrett further teaches:
wherein the schedule management program further comprises a coefficient adjustment module configured to adjust a coefficient registered with respect to the user, and wherein the first day-schedule suggestion means is further configured to calculate, based on the data for indices and the coefficient, the probabilities with respect to day-schedules registered in the day-schedule database(Garrett in at least [0046-0053] describes storing schedules in a database and the ability to determine the likelihood of appointments, routes, timing, etc. for different data and factors).
As per Claim 5 Garrett further teaches:
wherein the schedule management program is further configured to receive a day- schedule answer signal that includes a signal that represents a rating by the user with respect to the suggestion day-schedule, and wherein the coefficient adjustment module is configured to adjust the coefficient based on the rating (Garrett in at least [0040-0057] describes displaying information and enabling inputs, storing schedules in a database and the ability to determine the likelihood of appointments, routes, timing, etc. for different data and factors including changes and updates associated with user profile information).
As per Claim 6 Garrett further teaches:
wherein a condition with respect to each day-schedule is registered in the day-schedule database, and wherein the schedule management program is further configured to select the suggestion day-schedule from a group of day-schedule that meets the condition included in the day- schedules registered in the day-schedule database (Garrett in at least [0052-0056] describes storing schedules in a database and the ability to determine the likelihood of appointments, routes, timing, etc. for different data and selecting schedules based on preferences).
As per Claim 7 Garrett further teaches:
wherein the suggestion day-schedule includes a destination where the participant moves to and a date when the participant moves (Garrett in at least [0023, 0043-0046, 0053, 0079] describes location based services where suggestions include locations, future locations and time/date information).
As per Claim 8 Garrett further teaches:
wherein the storage device is further configured to store a budget estimation program configured to estimate a budget with respect to a plan category that represents a category of an action of the user, wherein the processor is further configured to read out and execute the budget estimation program, and wherein the schedule management program is further configured to determine the suggestion day-schedule based on the plan category in which the suggestion day-schedule is classified and the budget with respect to the plan category in which the suggestion day-schedule is classified (Garrett in at least Fig. 11 and [0072] illustrate and describe storing and utilizing cost information related to scheduling appointments and location based services and resources).
As per Claim 9 Garrett further teaches:
wherein the schedule management program further comprises: a first action suggestion means configured to determine an action-schedule that includes information representing a movement means, based on the suggestion day-schedule, and generate a first action suggestion signal for suggesting the determined action-schedule to the user; a second action suggestion means configured to generate, based on a first action answer signal in response to the first action suggestion signal, a second action suggestion signal for confirming the determined action-schedule with the participant except the user; and an action registration means configured to generate, based on a second action answer signal in response to the second action suggestion signal, an action notification signal that notifies the participant of the action-schedule, and register the action-schedule in the registered schedule of the participant (Garrett in at least [0023] describes how each of the mobile devices may be operable to transmit and/or receive signals from devices such as those illustrated in at least Fig. 1, [0043 describes the location aware appointment management application that may observe patterns in the user’s schedule and suggest predicted appointments based on the observed user behavior, based on the observed behavior the application may automatically add or make a suggestion to a user to add an appointment into the application).
Garrett does not teach but Ref 2 further teaches in at least [116] describes how a traveler may confirm the content of reservation, when requirement instructions of a travel advisory are input, a portable terminal will transmit a requirement of a travel advisory to the itinerary management server. [0077] describes the itinerary management server shows an example of the notification processing of operation information which notifies operation information such as a train delay to a portable terminal or server, see also [0134], [0090] describes the integrated reservation ID of one affair can be registered into member registration information, [0147], the traffic control server delivers the delay route ID and a delayed train ID to the itinerary management server of the delivery destination registered. Ref 2 is combined based on the reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
As per Claim 10 Garrett further teaches:
wherein the action registration means is further configured to transmit a reservation signal that represents a making of a reservation to an external server, based on the second action answer signal, and wherein the reservation signal that represents the making of the reservation includes a signal that represents a making of a payment of a fee, based on the second action answer signal (Garrett in at least [0021] describes using a payment system, and [0055-0056, 0061, 0075-0076] describe a reservation process).
As per Claim 11 Garrett further teaches:
wherein the schedule management program further comprises a route change means configured to execute the first day-schedule suggestion means or the first action suggestion means, based on a determination by a position monitor means or a determination by a passage time monitor means, wherein the position monitor means is configured to determine whether the user is moving along a route with respect to the movement means, and wherein the passage time monitor means is configured to determine whether the user can move along the route with respect to the movement means (Garrett in at least [0045-0061, 0072-0074] describe updating a route, the status of each appointment participate can be displayed in the on time status boxes in multiple ways, and the user interface can output location details).
As per Claim 12 Garrett further teaches:
wherein the position monitor means is further configured to determine whether the user is moving along the route with respect to the movement means in an area including a position where the user exists, based on a probability of existence of the user when the user moves along the route with respect to the movement means (Garrett in at least [0045-0077] describes location based tracking and on time status for participates while updating a route and how likely a user will arrive on time and ETA).
As per Claim 13 Garrett further teaches:
wherein the schedule management program further comprises the position monitor means (Garrett in at least [0045-0061, 0072-0074] describe updating a route, the status of each appointment participate can be displayed in the on time status boxes in multiple ways, and the user interface can output location details).
As per Claim 14 Garrett further teaches:
the schedule management apparatus according claim 11; and a terminal, wherein the terminal is configured to execute the position monitor means (Garrett in at least [0073-0074] describes the ability to track location based information via terminal stored instructions/programming).
As per Claim 15 the limitations are substantially similar to those set forth in claim 1 and are therefore rejected based on the same reasons and rationale set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
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 STEPHANIE Z DELICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1288. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHANIE Z DELICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623