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 is a Final Action on the merits in response to the claims filed on 12/31/2025.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 have been amended.
Response to Remarks
Examiner’s Response to Remarks/Arguments:
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Examiner’s Response to Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant argues the Specification describes the improvement to technologies for remote management of scheduling and amended claim 1 reflects the asserted improvement, the alleged mental process is integrated into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claim 1 recites mental processes related to observation and evaluation of data, but for the recitation of generic computer components; and uses a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. Applicant’s Remarks Pg. 10, ¶ 3, “continuously evaluating the one or more encoded conditions” is merely a mental process performed on a computer; as the courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. See Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). A computer programmer wrote the computer program instructions that is doing the encoding to be performed by the computer; and the conditions are merely inputs; and this is a mental process.
Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite “remotely invoking an application programming interface ("API") of a calendar application executing on the client device”, and this amendment is an additional element, however the claim is not directed to an improvement in technology, as the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the amendment is recited at a high level of generality. The claim considered as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and is merely resolving business problem of scheduling actions on a calendar. There are no additional elements recited that amount to more than the judicial exception; and Applicant’s Specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as a client device and application programming interface of a calendar application executing on the client device are anything other than a generic computer components. There is no technological improvement here, nor is there an improvement to the computer. Claims 10 and 16 are substantially similar and recite the same subject matter as claim 1, and recites the same abstract idea. The limitations of the dependent claims, 2 – 9, 11 – 15, and 17 – 20, are not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements set forth any limitations that meaningfully limit the abstract idea implementation. For the reasons above claims 1 – 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner’s Response to Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Applicant argues none of Seigel, Alvarez, nor Kohlschuetter, alone or in combination, disclose or make obvious at least "one or more conditions [encoded] using an expression language" or "remotely invoking an application programming interface ("API") of a calendar application executing on the client device to cause the client device to automatically schedule the planned action.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has amended claims 1, 10 , and 16. A new
search was necessitated due to the amendments to the claims and new art has been applied to those claims. Accordingly, all pending claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
4 Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 recites:
receiving, one or more remote management configurations, wherein the remote management configurations include one or more actions, selected from a plurality of actions, and one or more conditions, wherein the one or more conditions encode, using an expression language, temporal or contextual scheduling logic that define when an action should be scheduled;
receiving, a first calendar event and a second calendar event;
determining a period between the first calendar event and the second calendar event;
continuously evaluating the one or more conditions to determine, based on the period, that a first condition corresponding to a first remote management configuration has been satisfied;
determining a planned action corresponding to the first remote management configuration;
and schedule the planned action.
The limitations of claim 1, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites mental processes related to observation and evaluation of data, but for the recitation of generic computer components; and uses a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. For example, observing remote management configurations include one or more actions, selected from a plurality of actions, and one or more conditions, wherein the one or more conditions encode, using an expression language, temporal or contextual scheduling logic that define when an action should be scheduled; observing a first calendar event and a second calendar event; evaluating a period between the first calendar event and the second calendar event; evaluating continuously the one or more conditions to evaluate based on the period, that a first condition corresponding to a first remote management configuration has been satisfied; evaluating a planned action corresponding to the first remote management configuration; and schedule the planned action; as the claim collects information, analyzes the information, and displays the certain results of the collection and analysis, through a schedule; in addition the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind; and claim 1 involves observation and evaluation of data. Claims 10 and 16 are substantially similar and recite the same subject matter as claim 1. Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 16 recite mental processes.
The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas as well. For instance, claims 2, 11, and 17 are directed towards observing calendar information, claim 3 is directed towards evaluating,.. that the first condition corresponding to the first remote management configuration has been satisfied, claims 4, 12, and 18 are directed towards judging a third calendar event to occur during the period and observing a second command to cause the first calendar application of the client device to schedule the third calendar event, claims 5 and 13 are directed towards observing the first action information includes a link to a marketplace application, claims 6, 14, and 19 are directed towards observing a reminder configured to occur during the period, claim 7 is directed towards observing a reminder configuration update and observing a fourth command, claim 8 is directed towards observing the plurality of actions comprises a randomize action and evaluating the planned action corresponding to one or more remote management configurations and claims 9, 15, and 20 are directed towards observing a third indication that the planned action has begun and observing a fifth command.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a client device, calendar application, and remotely invoking an application programming interface ("API") of a calendar application executing on the client device to cause the client device to automatically; claim 10 recites the additional elements of a client device, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, calendar application, remotely invoking an application programming interface ("API") of a calendar application executing on the client device to cause the client device to automatically, and one or more processors of a device; and claim 16 recites the additional elements of a system, one or more processors, a calendar application, a client device, and remotely invoking an application programming interface ("API") of a calendar application executing on the client device to cause the client device to automatically; however these are considered as generic computer components per Applicant’s Specifications shown below:
“[0032] To provide such functionality, one or more client devices 140-180 may communicate with the chat and video conference provider110 using one or more communication networks, such as network120 or the public switched telephone network ("PSTN")130. The client devices 140-180 may be any suitable computing or communications device that have audio or video capability. For example, client devices 140-160 may be conventional computing devices, such as desktop or laptop computers having processors and computer-readable media, connected to the chat and video conference provider110 using the internet or other suitable computer network. Suitable networks include the internet, any local area network ("LAN"), metro area network ("MAN"), wide area network ("WAN"), cellular network (e.g., 3G, 4G, 4G LTE, 5G, etc.), or any combination of these. Other types of computing devices may be used instead or as well, such as tablets, smartphones, and dedicated video conferencing equipment. Each of these devices may provide both audio and video capabilities and may enable one or more users to participate in a video conference meeting hosted by the chat and video conference provider110.”
and thus are not practically integrated nor significantly more.
Each of the additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g., processor). See MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components to implement the judicial exception (e.g., processor). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2 – 9, 11 – 15, and 17 – 20, when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as ordered combination and individually add nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to “apply” the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1 – 20 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
5. Claims 1 – 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarez, Estaban (U.S. Publication No. 2019/030,3881) hereinafter “Alvarez” in view of Kohlschuetter, Karl Christian (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0349472) hereinafter “Kohlschuetter” in view of Siegel, Steven A. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,074,078) hereinafter “Siegel” in view of Brun, Caroline et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0318398) hereinafter “Brun”.
Claims 1, 10, and 16:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, from a client device, one or more remote management configurations, wherein the remote management configurations include one or more actions, selected from a plurality of actions; Alvarez teaches in ¶ 0026, selecting a venue for the appointment; Alvarez teaches in ¶ 0032, receiving appointment requests that may be likened to one or more actions. Alvarez teaches in ¶ 0066, a method for remotely managing appointment data with the consideration of calendar data for multiple users. Alvarez teaches in ¶ 0075, the computer system may include a plurality of processors. Alvarez teaches in ¶ 0073, non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions;
to determine based on the period, that a first condition corresponding to a first remote management configuration has been satisfied; Alvarez teaches in ¶ 0039, confirming an appointment time where once an appointment time is confirmed, or if confirmation is not required, the processing unit may be configured to block the availability of the primary user in their associated calendars and is likened to a first remote management configuration has been satisfied. Alvarez teaches in ¶ 0040, transmit the identified appointment time to calendar providers associated with each calendar for the invited other users. Users may first have to accept or deny a request to make an appointment based on an appointment time, where first accepting or denying the request to make an appointment is likened to the first remote management configuration being satisfied;
determining a planned action corresponding to the first remote management configuration; Alvarez teaches in ¶ 0040, a transmitting unit may be configured to transmit the associated data to the associated user devices. The appointment time is transmitted to the calendar providers for approval, where the appointment time is the planned action and the calendar providers approval in likened to the first remote management configuration.
Alvarez teaches updated dynamically, appointment data includes time and/or date range, receiving appointment requests, accept or deny a request to make the appointment, and remotely managing appointment data, aggregate event data for events, and a plurality of calendars and Alvarez and Kohlschuetter are similar where Alvarez and Kohlschuetter query user data and Kohlschuetter further teaches the following:
and one or more conditions, wherein the one or more conditions encode, temporal or contextual scheduling logic that define when an action should be scheduled; Kohlschuetter teaches in ¶ 0123, using several domain specific languages HTML, CSS, and Java; Kohlschuetter teaches in ¶ 0215, Applications include programs and/or modules that are configured to be executed by one or more processors. When digital assistant system is implemented on a server, applications include resource management applications, diagnostic applications, or scheduling applications; Kohlschuetter teaches in ¶ 0231, schedule a meeting; Kohlschuetter teaches in ¶ 0267, satisfying one or more corresponding threshold conditions.
continuously evaluating the one or more conditions; Kohlschuetter teaches in ¶ 0136, event monitor receiving event information.
and remotely invoking an application programming interface ("API") of a calendar application executing on the client device to cause the client device to automatically schedule the planned action; Kohlschuetter teaches in ¶ 0245, task flow processing module 736 employs the assistance of service processing module 738 (“service processing module”) to complete a task requested in the user input or to provide an informational answer requested in the user input. For example, service processing module 738 acts on behalf of task flow processing module 736 to make a phone call, set a calendar entry, invoke a map search, invoke or interact with other user applications installed on the user device, and invoke or interact with third-party services (e.g., a restaurant reservation portal, a social networking website, a banking portal, etc.). In some examples, the protocols and application programming interfaces (API) required by each service are specified by a respective service model among service models 756. Service processing module 738 accesses the appropriate service model for a service and generate requests for the service in accordance with the protocols and APIs required by the service according to the service model.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a method for remote management of appointment data of Alvarez and a method for receiving a message from a first device associated with systems and processes for operating an intelligent automated assistant to provide query suggestions of Kohlschuetter to assist businesses with satisfying condition in scheduling applications (Kohlschuetter Spec. ¶ 0215).
Alvarez teaches receiving appointment requests, accept or deny a request to make the appointment, and remotely managing appointment data, aggregate event data for events, and a plurality of calendars, two or more calendars registered with two or more calendar providers, and Kohlschuetter teaches querying suggestions for meetings and reservations, and Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, and Siegel are similar where Siegel teaches scheduled meetings with a first and second user, and user input or entry data for activities and events and Siegel further teaches the following:
receiving, from a first calendar application, a first calendar event and a second calendar event; Siegel teaches in Fig. 2, Calendar 202, Fri, at 10:30 AM Weekly Meeting and 11:30 AM Watch Crimes rerun home;
determining a period between the first calendar event and the second calendar event; Siegel teaches in Fig. 2, Calendar 202, a period between a first calendar event, Fri, at 10:30 AM Weekly Meeting and a second calendar event, Fri at 11:30 AM Watch Crimes rerun home.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a method for remote management of appointment data of Alvarez and systems and processes for operating an intelligent automated assistant to provide query suggestions of Kohlschuetter with and a method for receiving a message from a first device associated with a first user that is directed to a second user of Siegel to assist businesses with determining user availability for attending scheduled meetings (Siegel, col. 5, lines 57 – 63).
Alvarez teaches receiving appointment requests, accept or deny a request to make the appointment, and remotely managing appointment data, aggregate event data for events, and a plurality of calendars, two or more calendars registered with two or more calendar providers, and Kohlschuetter teaches querying suggestions, and Siegel teaches scheduled meetings with a first and second user, and user input or entry data for activities and events, and Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, and Siegel are similar to Brun where Brun teaches scheduling collaborative events with natural language processing and Brun further teaches the following:
using an expression language; Brun teaches in ¶ 0063, a temporal expression module; Brun teaches in ¶ 0136, a finite range of expressions can be encoded. In the exemplary embodiment, the modality has two possible values: “available” and “not available.” However, in other embodiments, additional values could also be contemplated, such as “don't know”, which could be treated as “unavailable,” for the purposes of scheduling, unless no other time period is returned as available for all participants. Brun further teaches in ¶ 0137, for example an AA such as "I'm not sure for Monday" is accorded the modality not available, resulting in an intermediate expression such as: ¶ 0138 P4: not_available(TE1-date_ref-granularity(day)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a method for remote management of appointment data of Alvarez and systems and processes for operating an intelligent automated assistant to provide query suggestions of Kohlschuetter and a method for receiving a message from a first device associated with a first user that is directed to a second user of Siegel with scheduling events involving multiple people of Brun to assist businesses with automated event scheduling with collaborating participants expressing availabilities in natural language form using expressions (Brun Spec. ¶ 0021).
Claims 2, 11, and 17:
Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, Siegel, and Brun teach claims 1, 10, and 16. Alvarez teaches receiving appointment requests, accept or deny a request to make the appointment, and remotely managing appointment data, aggregate event data for events, and a plurality of calendars, two or more calendars registered with two or more calendar providers, and Kohlschuetter teaches querying suggestions for meetings and reservations, and Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, and Siegel are similar where Siegel teaches scheduled meetings with a first and second user, and user input or entry data for activities and events and Siegel further teaches the following:
receiving, from a second calendar application, calendar information Siegel teaches in col. 5, lines 52 – 55, receiving calendar information such as watching television.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a method for remote management of appointment data of Alvarez and systems and processes for operating an intelligent automated assistant to provide query suggestions of Kohlschuetter and scheduling events involving multiple people of Brun with a method for receiving a message from a first device associated with a first user that is directed to a second user of Siegel to assist businesses with determining user availability for attending scheduled meetings (Siegel, col. 5, lines 57 – 63).
Claim 3:
Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, Siegel, and Brun teach claims 1, 10, and 16. Alvarez teaches receiving appointment requests, accept or deny a request to make the appointment, and remotely managing appointment data, aggregate event data for events, and a plurality of calendars, two or more calendars registered with two or more calendar providers, and Kohlschuetter teaches querying suggestions for meetings and reservations, and Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, and Siegel are similar where Siegel teaches scheduled meetings with a first and second user, and user input or entry data for activities and events and Siegel further teaches the following:
determining, based on the period and the first calendar event, that the first condition corresponding to the first remote management configuration has been satisfied. Siegel teaches in col. 9, lines 25 – 31, a notification may send a message that identifies the device capability as a condition for participating in a meeting… For example, the message 164 may indicate that video capability is required for participating in the meeting. Siegel teaches in Fig. 3, a meeting likened to a first calendar event, requiring video capability, with a time period for the meeting; in addition the user may decline or accept the meeting based on the time period and device video capability.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a method for remote management of appointment data of Alvarez and systems and processes for operating an intelligent automated assistant to provide query suggestions of Kohlschuetter and scheduling events involving multiple people of Brun with a method for receiving a message from a first device associated with a first user that is directed to a second user of Siegel to assist businesses with determining user availability for attending scheduled meetings (Siegel, col. 5, lines 57 – 63).
Claims 4, 12, and 18:
Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, Siegel, and Brun teach claims 1, 10, and 16. Alvarez teaches receiving appointment requests, accept or deny a request to make the appointment, and remotely managing appointment data, aggregate event data for events, and a plurality of calendars, two or more calendars registered with two or more calendar providers, and Kohlschuetter teaches querying suggestions for meetings and reservations, and Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, and Siegel are similar where Siegel teaches scheduled meetings with a first and second user, and user input or entry data for activities and events and Siegel further teaches the following:
generating a third calendar event to occur during the period, wherein the third calendar event comprises first action information; Siegel teaches a third calendar event in Fig. 2, a “Lunch meeting” on Mon at 11:30 AM; Siegel teaches in col. 5, line 60 in a meeting; teaches in col. 5, line 49, a meeting URL where the meeting data is likened to first action information.
and outputting a second command to cause the first calendar application of the client device to schedule the third calendar event; Siegel teaches in col. 2, lines 64 – 67, platform server may “ring” the identified device(s) (e.g., by sending an alert to the device(s)) to notify the second user of the invitation to the real-time/near-real-time meeting, where notification of an invite is likened to the second command, sending an alert is likened to the first calendar application, and a real-time/near-real-time meeting is likened to the third calendar event.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a method for remote management of appointment data of Alvarez and systems and processes for operating an intelligent automated assistant to provide query suggestions of Kohlschuetter and scheduling events involving multiple people of Brun with a method for receiving a message from a first device associated with a first user that is directed to a second user of Siegel to assist businesses with determining user availability for attending scheduled meetings (Siegel, col. 5, lines 57 – 63).
Claims 5 and 13:
Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, Siegel, and Brun teach claims 1, 10, and 16. Alvarez teaches receiving appointment requests, accept or deny a request to make the appointment, and remotely managing appointment data, aggregate event data for events, and a plurality of calendars, two or more calendars registered with two or more calendar providers, and Kohlschuetter teaches querying suggestions for meetings and reservations, and Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, and Siegel are similar where Siegel teaches scheduled meetings with a first and second user, and user input or entry data for activities and events and Siegel further teaches the following:
the first action information includes a hyperlink to a marketplace application, and further comprising: sending, to the marketplace application, a first indication of the planned action; Siegel teaches in col. 19, lines 48 – 49, downloading the meeting management application from the marketplace. Siegel teaches sending a meeting URL to the user device with the marketplace application in Fig 3, box 318;
receiving, from the marketplace application, a second indication of a marketplace selection; Siegel teaches in col. 1, lines 13 – 17, a user’s device receiving a direct invitation that may include a popup message in a browser notifying a user that an entity is “calling,” to join a communication session. Siegel teaches in col. 3, lines 15 – 17, the second user may select the URI at a device to establish communication for participation in the meeting.
and adding, to the first action information, marketplace selection information; Siegel teaches in col. 10, lines 27 – 30, the communication module may receive confirmation that indicates the user has joined the meeting.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a method for remote management of appointment data of Alvarez and systems and processes for operating an intelligent automated assistant to provide query suggestions of Kohlschuetter and scheduling events involving multiple people of Brun with a method for receiving a message from a first device associated with a first user that is directed to a second user of Siegel to assist businesses with determining user availability for attending scheduled meetings (Siegel, col. 5, lines 57 – 63).
Claims 6, 14, and 19:
Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, Siegel, and Brun teach claims 1, 10, and 16. Alvarez teaches receiving appointment requests, accept or deny a request to make the appointment, and remotely managing appointment data, aggregate event data for events, and a plurality of calendars, two or more calendars registered with two or more calendar providers, and Kohlschuetter teaches querying suggestions for meetings and reservations, and Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, and Siegel are similar where Siegel teaches scheduled meetings with a first and second user, and user input or entry data for activities and events and Siegel further teaches the following:
generating a reminder, wherein the reminder is configured to occur during the period; Siegel teaches in col. 3, lines 54 – 55, sending an alert at the approximate time of the meeting, where an alert is likened to a reminder.
and comprises: second action information; Siegel teaches in col. 3, lines 23 – 27, receiving a message at 4 hours ahead of time for the scheduled meeting indicating a meeting is scheduled in the future, where the alert of 4 hours until the scheduled meeting is likened to second action information;
and one or more reminder configurations; Siegel teaches in col. 5, lines 64 – 67 and col. 6, lines 1 – 5, setting user preferences to receive alerts and is likened to receiving reminder configurations;
and outputting a third command to cause the client device to schedule the reminder; Siegel teaches in col. 10, lines 34 – 37, the user may set the user profile to receive alerts to the mobile device related to the meeting.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a method for remote management of appointment data of Alvarez and systems and processes for operating an intelligent automated assistant to provide query suggestions of Kohlschuetter and scheduling events involving multiple people of Brun with a method for receiving a message from a first device associated with a first user that is directed to a second user of Siegel to assist businesses with determining user availability for attending scheduled meetings (Siegel, col. 5, lines 57 – 63).
Claim 7:
Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, Siegel, and Brun teach claims 1, 10, and 16. Alvarez teaches receiving appointment requests, accept or deny a request to make the appointment, and remotely managing appointment data, aggregate event data for events, and a plurality of calendars, two or more calendars registered with two or more calendar providers, and Kohlschuetter teaches querying suggestions for meetings and reservations, and Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, and Siegel are similar where Siegel teaches scheduled meetings with a first and second user, and user input or entry data for activities and events and Siegel further teaches the following:
receiving, from the client device, a reminder configuration update; Siegel teaches in col. 13, lines 55 – 58, user has the ability to update meeting entries in the user calendar. Siegel teaches in col. 13, lines 66 – 67, and col. 14, line 1, invited users related to the update receiving the message updating the meeting;
and outputting a fourth command to cause an update to the one or more reminder configurations; Siegel teaches a user may move a meeting day or time or change the meeting title, where changing a meeting title is likened to a command causing an update that is sent to other users.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a method for remote management of appointment data of Alvarez and systems and processes for operating an intelligent automated assistant to provide query suggestions of Kohlschuetter and scheduling events involving multiple people of Brun with a method for receiving a message from a first device associated with a first user that is directed to a second user of Siegel to assist businesses with determining user availability for attending scheduled meetings (Siegel, col. 5, lines 57 – 63).
Claim 8:
Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, Siegel, and Brun teach claims 1, 10, and 16. Alvarez teaches receiving appointment requests, accept or deny a request to make the appointment, and remotely managing appointment data, aggregate event data for events, and a plurality of calendars, two or more calendars registered with two or more calendar providers, and Kohlschuetter teaches querying suggestions for meetings and reservations, and Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, and Siegel are similar where Siegel teaches scheduled meetings with a first and second user, and user input or entry data for activities and events and Siegel further teaches the following:
wherein the plurality of actions further comprises a randomize action and wherein determining the planned action corresponding to the one or more remote management configurations comprises: receiving, from the client device, the randomize action; Siegel teaches in col. 12, lines 47 – 57, scheduled activities and meetings that may be changed around to different times or removed and is likened to random actions as the calendar events;
determining, based on the period and the first calendar event, that a second condition corresponding to a second remote management configuration has been satisfied; Siegel teaches in col. 12, lines 62 – 67, and col. 13, lines 1 – 3, a user provides an email address when adding a time coupled with a meeting entry to the calendar, where the meeting entry is a first calendar event. The user adds a name and then selects the option to add a name to an invitee list. Once this is satisfied the invitee may be added to the meeting entry’s invitee list.
and responsive to the randomize action, selecting the planned action corresponding to a randomly selected action from among the one or more actions; Siegel teaches in col. 13, lines 4 – 7, the invitees indicating whether the randomized added meeting entry request has been sent to the invitee and accepted or declined, where sending the added meeting entry and accepting or declining the meeting entry is likened to selecting the planned action.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a method for remote management of appointment data of Alvarez and systems and processes for operating an intelligent automated assistant to provide query suggestions of Kohlschuetter and scheduling events involving multiple people of Brun with a method for receiving a message from a first device associated with a first user that is directed to a second user of Siegel to assist businesses with determining user availability for attending scheduled meetings (Siegel, col. 5, lines 57 – 63).
Claims 9, 15, and 20:
Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, Siegel, and Brun teach claims 1, 10, and 16. Alvarez teaches receiving appointment requests, accept or deny a request to make the appointment, and remotely managing appointment data, aggregate event data for events, and a plurality of calendars, two or more calendars registered with two or more calendar providers, and Kohlschuetter teaches querying suggestions for meetings and reservations, and Alvarez, Kohlschuetter, and Siegel are similar where Siegel teaches scheduled meetings with a first and second user, and user input or entry data for activities and events and Siegel further teaches the following:
receiving a third indication that the planned action has begun; Siegel teaches in col. 13, lines 13 – 19, displaying a check mark next to the invitee’s name to indicate the meeting request has been sent and accepted.
and outputting a fifth command comprising instructions to cause an action application associated with the planned action to execute; Siegel teaches in col. 10, line 67 joining a video conference may be a calendar event and likened to a planned action to execute; Siegel further teaches in col. 11, lines 1 – 4, a communication module providing instructions for joining the set-top box device and web session with a URL in the meeting data which the user may use to join the video conference.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine a method for remote management of appointment data of Alvarez and systems and processes for operating an intelligent automated assistant to provide query suggestions of Kohlschuetter and scheduling events involving multiple people of Brun with a method for receiving a message from a first device associated with a first user that is directed to a second user of Siegel to assist businesses with determining user availability for attending scheduled meetings (Siegel, col. 5, lines 57 – 63).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Note: these are additional references found but not used.
- Reference Toudji, Sofiane et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0349471) discloses events in either structured data (e.g. HTML web page or email) or text in a natural language description that can be extracted and entered into one or more calendars on a user's device.
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 Frank Alston whose telephone number is 703-756-4510. The Examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM Monday - Friday. Examiner can be reached via Fax at 571-483-7338.
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 Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737.
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.
/FRANK MAURICE ALSTON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3625
4/17/2026
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights