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 . 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.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-3 and 6-20 of the “AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION” filed 16 April 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment/Response”).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 April 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the ISD is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) Referring to the pending claims, the “device” of claims 1-3 and 615 constitutes a machine under 35 USC 101, and the “method” of claims 16-20 constitutes a process under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-3 and 6-20 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“... display a calendar and a text input part ..., the text input part comprising a window for receiving inputs, wherein the window is adjacent to the calendar, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... while an area indicating a date among a plurality of areas is visually highlighted, receive a text via a first user input in the window, wherein the text comprises a first part associated with a first event and a second part associated with a second event distinct from the first event, the first part and the second part being concurrently displayed in the window, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... wherein the first part includes first title information of the first event and first time information of the first event, and wherein the second part includes second title information of the second event and second time information of the second event, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... based on receiving the text, within the text input part, convert the first time information to a first image indicating the first time information in place of the first time information and convert the second time information to a second image indicating the second time information in place of the second time information, in preparation for registration, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... in response to a second user input on the second time information within the text input part, restore the second time information as text, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... receive a third user input in a state in which the first image is maintained and the second time information is restored as text, ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... based on the third user input, in the calendar, register the first title information at a time corresponding to the first time information and register the second title information and the second time information as an all-day event, and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... based on the registering, display, in the area indicating the date, a first calendar image for the first event, comprising the first title information, and a second calendar image for the second event, comprising the second title information and the second time information.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: managing personal behavior in the form of instructing individuals on updating calendars, which falls under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “display” and “receive” steps), and evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (e.g., the recited “convert,” “restore,” and “register” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
“An electronic device comprising: a display; at least one processor operatively coupled with the display; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (f), and (h)
The claimed “display” is performed “on the display” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (f), and (h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: mere automation of manual processes, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 6-15, the claims depend from claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “receive a fourth user input in a state in which the first image and the second image are maintained, based on the fourth user input, in the calendar, register the first title information and the first time information as an all-day event and register the second title information and the second time information as another all-day event, and based on the registering, display, in the area indicating the date, a third calendar image for the first event, comprising the first title information and the first time information, and the second calendar image for the second event, comprising the second title information and the second time information” of claim 2, the “receive a fifth user input in a state in which the first time information and the second time information are restored as text, based on the fifth user input, in the calendar, register the first title information at a time corresponding to the first time information and register the second title information at a time corresponding to the second time information, and based on the registering, display, in the area indicating the date, the first calendar image for the first event, comprising the first title information, and a fourth calendar image for the second event, comprising the second title information” of claim 3, the “based on setting information ... having a first value, register the first part for the first event and register the second part for the second event” of claim 6, the “based on setting information ... having a second value, register the first title information at a time corresponding to the first time information and register the second title information at a time corresponding to the second time information” of claim 7, the “in response to the second user input, display the first title information according to the first time information and the second title information according to the second time information on an area corresponding to a current date in the calendar” of claim 9, and the “wherein the first time information and the second time information comprise a prepositional phrase respectively, and ... identify, based on the first time information, a first time interval, and identify, based on the second time information, a second time interval” of claim 10, and the “identify, based on the first time interval, start time information of the first event
and end time information of the first event, and identify, based on the second time interval, start time information of the second event and end time information of the second event” of claim 11, the “identify the first time information as a start time of the first event, identify, based on the first title information, a type of the first event, determine, based on the type of the first event, end time of the first event, and register the first title information using the start time and the end time of the first event in the calendar” of claim 12, the “receive at least one ... input on the area among the plurality of areas representing a plurality of dates in the calendar, and ... visually highlight, among the plurality of areas, the area” of claim 13, the “receive at least one ... input on an area among the plurality of areas representing a plurality of dates in the calendar, and ... display a ... window including another text input part” of claim 14, and the “wherein the area corresponds to a current date in the calendar” of claim 15). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “electronic device ..., wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to” of claim 2, the “electronic device ..., wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to” of claim 3, the “electronic device ..., wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: ... for a software application” of claim 6, the “electronic device ..., wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: ... for the software application” of claim 7, the “electronic device ..., wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: in response to at least one touch input on the text input part, display a virtual keyboard with the text input part, superimposed on the calendar, and receive the first user input through the virtual keyboard” of claim 8, the “electronic device ..., wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to” of claim 9, the “electronic device ..., and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to” of claim 10, the “electronic device ..., wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to” of claim 11, the “electronic device ..., wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to” of claim 12, the “electronic device ..., wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: ... touch” of claim 13, the “electronic device ..., wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: ... touch ..., and in response to the at least one touch input, ... pop-up” of claim 14, and the “electronic device” of claim 15). Accordingly, claims 2, 3, and 6-15 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 16-20, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-3, 6, and 7, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-3, 6, and 7. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-3, 6, and 7 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 16-20. Claims 16-20 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 13-15 of the Amendment/Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. Specifically, with respect to Step 2A, Prong One of the multistep eligibility analysis, the applicant argues, “when properly considered as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a technological improvement in user interface behavior of an electronic device, not to an abstract idea. The claim recites a series of specific computing operations tied to the structure and functioning of the electronic device, and therefore is patent eligible.” (Amendment/Response, p. 14.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The question of technological improvement is considered at Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, not in Step 2A, Prong One. Also, it is the examiner’s contention that step 2A, Prong One cannot be performed while considering the claim as a whole, as Step 2A, Prong One requires putting aside additional elements of the claim. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1) and (2).)
The applicant also argues that the claimed converting time information to an image cannot be performed by humans because it is a computing operation, and is not a method of organizing human activity. (See Amendment/Response, p. 14.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. A human, using a writing implement and paper, can transform text into an image and vice-versa. For example, by erasing written text and drawing a picture, and then erasing the drawing and re-writing the text. Such claim limitations read more like digitalizing an analog process, rather than something warranting eligibility.
The applicant also argues that the claimed automatic generating of calendar entries according to device executed logic tied to the image interaction is an improvement to processing software. (See Amendment/Response, p. 14.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The limitation reads like using a generic, conventional computer to perform a known manual activity (i.e., generating calendar entries). Using processing software to perform an act, or harnessing advantages of using processing software, do not equate to improving processing software.
With respect tot Step 2A, Prong Two of the multistep eligibility analysis, the applicant argues that the claim recites a specific improvement to the functioning of an electronic device by enabling conversion of textual elements into images within an input field, a modification of how user interfaces operate, resulting in more efficient input processing, and automatic generating of multiple distinct calendar entries upon detecting concurrent multievent text input. (See Amendment/Response, pp. 14 and 15.) The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. The claims read less like improving the functioning of an electronic device by enabling conversion of textual elements into images within an input field, and more like use of a generic, conventional electronic device to convert textual elements into images within an input field so the converting does not have to be performed manually (mere automation of manual processing being insufficient to show an eligibility-warranting improvement, per MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)). It is not clear to the examiner: whether the former was even a technological problem that needed solved (in view of the fact that the references listed in the Conclusions section below appear to show that converting text into images is conventional computer operation), and whether the applicant’s specification explains the basis for asserting why converting text into images in an input field is an improvement to computer functionality or technology. Further, the examiner disagrees that a modification of how a user interface operations is an improvement that warrants eligibility, in the absence of why or how the modification is an improvement in the specification. The same issue pertains to the automatic generation of multiple distinct calendar entries. If the applicant can point to an explanation, in the originally-filed disclosure, that explains why or how such features constitute an eligibility-warranting improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a), the examiner will reconsider the ineligibility rejection. As it currently stands, the features are being viewed as ways in which an interface operates that are beneficial in one or more ways, as opposed to an improvement in the way interfaces operate.
On 15-18 of the Amendment/Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejections under 35 USC 103. In view of the amendments to the claims, and for the reasons specified in the Examiner Remarks section below, the claim rejections have been reconsidered and withdrawn.
Examiner Remarks
Claims 1-3 and 6-20 distinguish over the prior art of record. The combination of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0117314 A1 to Wilder et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Wilder”), U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2015/0193392 A1 to Greenblatt et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Greenblatt”), and U.S. Pat. No. 7,991,636 B1 to Groves (hereinafter referred to as “Groves”), asserted in the most recent (now withdrawn) obviousness rejections, represent the closest prior art of record. As explained in the Non-Final Office Action of 17 December 2025: Wilder discloses a calendar, and input entry box alongside the calendar for receiving user inputs of text about events, and the times and dates at which they should take place; Greenblatt discloses scheduling multiple events for multiple times in a single string of text, and dates and times in the text being modified from plain text into formatted text; and Groves discloses displaying, in dated cells of calendars, visual representations of events and time ranges therefore. None of the references, either alone or in combination, discloses, teaches, or suggests the recited “within the text input part, convert the first time information to a first image indicating the first time information in place of the first time information and convert the second time information to a second image indicating the second time information in place of the second time information, ... in response to a second user input on the second time information within the text input part, restore the second time information as text, receive a third user input in a state in which the first image is maintained and the second time information is restored as text, based on the third user input, in the calendar, register the first title information at a time corresponding to the first time information and register the second title information and the second time information as an all-day event” limitations of claim 1 (and corresponding limitations of claim 16). For example, the converting of text inputs for dates and times into formatted versions (different color, underlined, etc.), in Greenblatt, does not read on the claimed converting text information into images used in place of the text information, converting from images back to text, and subsequent registering with different characteristics based thereon, as claimed. Neither Wilder nor Groves discloses, teaches, or suggests anything as close as Greenblatt. Because of these deficiencies of the references, the closest prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious each and every limitation of claim 1 (or claim 16). The other pending claims depend from one of claims 1 and 16 and are therefore also allowable over the closest prior art of record for similar reasons.
Additional searching also uncovered the following: Saha, Sayan, and Kakelli Anil Kumar. "Emoji prediction using emerging machine learning classifiers for text-based communication." J. Math. Sci. Comput 1 (2022): 37-43 (hereinafter referred to as “Saha”), and EP Pat. App. Pub. No. 2 998 855 A1 to Kim et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kim”). While Saha discloses converting text into images (emojis) (see FIG. 2), the concept of converting text into images would not address the deficiencies of the prior art of record, as explained in the preceding paragraphs. For example, Saha does not appear to disclose, teach, or suggest restoring images to text. And while Kim discloses converting handwritten text into smaller images thereof, Kim discloses doing so in dated cells of a calendar interface, and not in a text input box or field (see FIGS. 16C-16E). Thus, Saha and/or Kim also does/do not disclose, teach, or suggest the recited “within the text input part, convert the first time information to a first image indicating the first time information in place of the first time information and convert the second time information to a second image indicating the second time information in place of the second time information, ... in response to a second user input on the second time information within the text input part, restore the second time information as text, receive a third user input in a state in which the first image is maintained and the second time information is restored as text, based on the third user input, in the calendar, register the first title information at a time corresponding to the first time information and register the second title information and the second time information as an all-day event” limitations of claim 1 (and corresponding limitations of claim 16), or modifying the other prior art of record in a manner such that the combination of Saha and/or Kim, and any of the other prior art, would read on the limitations. For these additional reasons, the prior art of record does not anticipate or render obvious each and every limitation of claim 1 (or claim 16). The other pending claims depend from one of claims 1 and 16 and are therefore also allowable over the prior art of record for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following:
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2017/0308587 A1 to Nagel et al. discloses, “to output for display a graphical keyboard comprising a plurality of keys, determine, based on an indication of a selection of one or more keys from the plurality of keys, inputted, determine, based on the inputted text, an information category associated with the inputted text, determine, based on the information category, a graphical symbol associated with the information category, and output, for display, the graphical symbol in a suggestion region of the graphical keyboard.” (Abstract).
EP Pat. App. Pub. No. 2 998 855 A1 to Kim et al. discloses, “An electronic device and a method of inputting an object are provided. The electronic device includes interpreting an object input through an application, enlarging and displaying at least some data in accordance with a result of the analysis of the object, and displaying a new object on an enlarged area.” (Abstract).
Saha, Sayan, and Kakelli Anil Kumar. "Emoji prediction using emerging machine learning classifiers for text-based communication." J. Math. Sci. Comput 1 (2022): 37-43.
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 THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights