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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11 May 2026 has been entered.
This is a non-final action in reply to the entered RCE.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 101 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully maintained and updated below as necessitated by the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 103 rejections previously raised. Those rejections are respectfully withdrawn. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach the details of the equations utilized in the claims to calculate the day-schedule index, action schedule index or plan index or their variants.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim language utilizes a processor to calculate different index values. This is considered part of the abstract idea since it demonstrates a clear mathematical concept and formula. The use of a computer in a generalized fashion to increase efficiency does not meaningfully limit the otherwise abstract claims. In order for the addition of a machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of the 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. The 101 rejection is respectfully maintained and updated below to address the amendments including the calculated index equations.
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.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that they fail define all the terms of equations 1 through 5 in the claims. Therefore, it is unclear what is being equated or how the equations could be used to derive the indices. Clarification and correction is required.
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 as well as calculating a day-schedule index, action schedule index or plan index using the specified equations. 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 equations used to calculate the different index values are considered to fall within the abstract mathematical concepts grouping since they are mathematical equations. 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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights