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 the Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/26/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 11-12, and 21-22 are currently amended.
Claims 1-23 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments pages 11-12 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The invention remains an abstract idea, most notably mental processes and organizing human activities since a human is able to create a calendar based on message thread and event properties.
Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory in Content Extraction is according to the court an abstract idea that is similar to other concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts. Present claim 1 is collecting and analyzing electronic message data using a generic computer processor. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude based on the similarity of the idea described in this claim to several abstract ideas found by the courts that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The additional elements, identified by the Examiner are generic computer elements recited at a high level of generality and used to apply the abstract idea and nothing more. The recited additional elements do not integrate the claims into a practical application because as a whole, the additional elements do not improve any existing technology nor they improve the function of a computer. The present additional elements do not count to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B. As a result, the present claims are not eligible under 101.
Applicant’s present amendments about an access link included in subsequent messages in addition to the other existing additional elements advances prosecution of the application but do not make it eligible under 35 USC § 101. Interactions between the different systems and other technical details as highlighted in the following paragraphs 0048-0049 are examples languages that can be added to the claims to advance prosecution.
[0048] FIG. 3C illustrates user interface 320 that shows subsequent message exchanges within the electronic message thread of the user interface 300. The user interface 320 also includes a calendar summary 321 which is a summary of event information of the electronic calendar event created based on the event properties discussed in the electronic message thread. For example, the calendar summary 321 includes the event title (e.g., Dinner), event date ("Fri, Dec 2 2016"), event time (e.g., "7:00 PM"), and location (e.g., "Restaurant A"). The calendar summary 321 may also provide an access link to the created calendar event. For example, when a user action is detected at "VIEW EVENT" of the event summary, the messaging system calls an API to the calendar event for displaying details of the electronic calendar event. In some aspects, when the client devices of other participants (e.g., second user, "Janet," and third user, "Larry") do not support the functions of the event management system 220, an access link to the created calendar event may be embedded in a subsequent electronic message from the participant (e.g., Will) whose client device supports the functions of the event management system 220 in the electronic message thread. The calendar system may allow access to the created calendar event when a user action is received at the access link in the subsequent electronic message.
[0049] In the subsequent message exchanges, the second user (e.g., Janet) suggests Restaurant B instead of Restaurant A in message 322. The third user and the first user agree to the second user's suggestion by replying with messages 323 and 322, respectively. The messaging system forwards the messages 322, 323, and 324 to the event management system. For example, the event analysis module of the event management system determines that the messages 322, 323, and 324 are associated with thread ID 212. The event creation module of the event management system determines whether an electronic calendar event exists for thread ID 212. When the electronic calendar event exists for thread ID 212, the event creation module sends commands to the calendar system to update the electronic calendar event associated with thread ID 212. The calendar system sends a command to the messaging system to provide for display an updated calendar event summary.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejection of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-23 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements to integrate the claims into a practical application or to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1-23 are directed to a process, machine, or manufacture (Step 1), however the claims are directed to the abstract idea of creating an electronic calendar based on discussions of various topics in electronic messages by identifying calendar properties from message contents.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the frameworks, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes limitations for “A method for creating a calendar event, comprising: receiving a first electronic message thread comprising one or more electronic messages; parsing message content and message metadata of the one or more of electronic messages of the first electronic message thread to identify a first set of event properties of a first event; determining whether the first set of event properties of the first event satisfies one or more event criteria; responsive to determining that the first set of event properties of the first event satisfies the one or more event creation criteria, causing a first electronic calendar event with event attributes and an access link to be created based on the first set of event properties of the first event and event access rights, wherein the event access rights define different access rules with respect to the event attributes of the first electronic calendar event for different users, and causing the access link to the first electronic calendar event, created, to be included in a subsequent electronic message; receiving a second electronic message thread comprising one or more electronic messages; parsing message content and message metadata of the one or more electronic messages of the second electronic message thread to identify a second set of event properties of a second event; determining whether the second set of event properties of the second event satisfies the one or more event criteria; and responsive to determining that the second set of event properties of the second event does not satisfy the one or more event creation criteria, refraining from causing a second electronic calendar event to be created”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the limitations above recite Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities grouping, and specifically, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 11 and 21 recite substantially similar limitations to those presented with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 11 and 21 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-9, 12-20, and 22-23 recite a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activities because the claimed elements describe a process for creating an event calendar for participants in an electronic message thread. As a result, claims 2-9, 12-20, and 22-23 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that does not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “computer-implemented”, “an electronic”, “by a processor of an event management system”, “in the calendar system”, “provided by the messaging system, wherein the calendar system is separate from the messaging system”, “created by a messaging system”, “wherein the first electronic message thread is received via an application programming interface (API) between the messaging system and the event management system”, “in a calendar system”, and “wherein the second electronic message thread is received via the API between the messaging system and the event management system”. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the steps of “receiving” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “receiving” is an insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 11 and 21 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further recites “A computing system for creating an electronic calendar event, comprising: a memory; and a processor of an event management system, the processor coupled to the memory”, and claim 21 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”, when considered in view of the claims as a whole, the recited computer elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 11 and 21 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-9, 12-20, and 22-23 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 21. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “event interface”, claims 4 and 14, “message interface”, claims 10 and 20. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer element is generic computer element that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-9, 12-20, and 22-23 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that does not recite an abstract idea. The additional elements of claim 1 include “computer-implemented”, “an electronic”, “by a processor of an event management system”, “in the calendar system”, “provided by the messaging system, wherein the calendar system is separate from the messaging system”, “created by a messaging system”, “wherein the first electronic message thread is received via an application programming interface (API) between the messaging system and the event management system”, “in a calendar system”, and “wherein the second electronic message thread is received via the API between the messaging system and the event management system”. The steps of “receiving” do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because “receiving” is well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 11 and 21 recite substantially similar limitations to those recited with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further recites “A computing system for creating an electronic calendar event, comprising: a memory; and a processor of an event management system, the processor coupled to the memory”, and claim 21 further recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium”, the recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 11 and 21 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-9, 12-20, and 22-23 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claims 1, 11, and 21. The additional elements in the dependent claims include “event interface”, claims 4 and 14, “message interface”, claims 10 and 20. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the recited computer element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the computer element is generic computer element that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 2-9, 12-20, and 22-23 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
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) 273-3734.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (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 US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights