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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The applicant's submission, the “AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION” filed on 15 September 2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment/Response”), has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-20 as presented in the Amendment/Response.
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 1-20 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 1-15 constitutes a machine under 35 USC 101, and the “method” of claims 16-20 constitutes a process under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-20 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 independent 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 highlighted, receive a user input of text in the window displayed ..., 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 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 indicates first title information of the first event and first time information of the first event, and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... wherein the second part indicates second title information of the second event and second time information of the second event; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... display, in the area indicating the date, a first calendar image comprising the first title information according to the first time information and a second calendar image comprising the second title information according to the second time information, in response to receiving the user input of the text concurrently comprising the first part and the second part in the window.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of independent 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 fall 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 “display” 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 independent 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) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “display” is performed “on the display” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “displayed” occurs “on the display” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, mere automation of manual processes, instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, 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, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, 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)); remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); 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)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated in the form of selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in an environment, for collection, analysis, and display, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); 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, independent 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 2-15, the claims depend from independent 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 “wherein the first part includes: a first text part representing the first time information associated with first title information, and a second text part representing the first title information, wherein the second part includes: a third text part representing the second time information associated with second title information, and a fourth text part representing the second title information” of claim 2, the “based on identifying the first and the second time information, change the first text part to a first image representing the first time information and the third text part to a second image representing the second time information” of claim 3, the “restore, in response to another user input related to the first image among the first image and the second image, the first image to the first text part, and based on the first image being restored to the first text part, identifying the first text part and the second part as the first title information” of claim 4, the “maintain, based on the first image being restored to the first text part, the fourth text part as the second title information” of claim 5, the “in response to the another user input being related to the first image, change the first time information of the first event to a predetermined time” of claim 6, the “based on setting information ... having a designated value, identify the first text part and the second text part as the first title information of the first event and identify the third text part and the fourth text part as the second title information of the second event” of claim 7, the “based on the setting information for the software application having a second value, identify the second text part as the first title information of the first event and identify the fourth text part as the second title information of the second event” of claim 8, the “identify a divider part for dividing a first event and a second event, in the text, and based on the divider part, identify that the first text part and the third text part represent time information” of claim 9, the “wherein the first text part and the third text part comprise a prepositional phrase respectively, and ... identify, based on the first text part, a first time interval, and ... identify, based on the third text part, a second time interval” of claim 10, the “identify, based on the first time interval, start time information of the first event and end time information of the first event from the first time information, and identify, based on the second time interval, start time information of the second event and end time information of the second event from the second time information” of claim 11, the “identify the first text part as a start time of the first event from the first time information, identify, based on the first title information, a type of the first event, identify, based on the type of the first event, end time information of the first event, and display the first title information, the start time information of the first event, and the end time information of the first event in the calendar” of claim 12, the “receive at least one ... input on the first area among the plurality of areas representing a plurality of dates in the calendar, and highlight, among the plurality of areas, the area” of claim 13, the “receive at least one ... input on another area among the plurality of areas representing a plurality of dates in the calendar, in response to the at least one ... input, display ... another text input part with at least one event set at a date corresponding to the another area, superimposed on the calendar, and based on a user input to the another text input part, display at least one calendar image associated with the at least one event in the another area” 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” 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” of claim 4, the “electronic device ... wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to” of claim 5, the “electronic device ... wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to” 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 ... for the software application” 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 ... 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 ... touch ... pop-up window” of claim 14, and the “electronic device” of claim 15). Accordingly, claims 2-15 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 16-20, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-5, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-5. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-5 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 16-20. Claims 16-20 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0117314 A1 to Wilder et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Wilder”), in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2015/0193392 A1 to Greenblatt et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Greenblatt”), and further in view of U.S. Pat. No. 7,991,636 B1 to Groves (hereinafter referred to as “Groves”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Wilder discloses the following limitations:
“An electronic device comprising: ...” - Wilder discloses, “One skilled in the art will recognize that embodiments of the present invention, some of which are described herein, may be incorporated into a number of different systems and devices including general purpose computers, specialized computers, mobile devices (including without limitation mobile telephones, personal data assistants (PDAs), and multimedia devices), and the like” (para. [0108]).
“... a display; ...” - Wilder discloses, “computing system 1400 may include one or more output devices 1408, coupled to processor 1402, to facilitate displaying graphics and text. Output devices 1408 may include, but are not limited to, a display, LCD screen, CRT monitor, printer, touch screen, or other device for displaying information” (para. [0127]).
“... at least one processor operatively coupled with the display; and ...” - Wilder discloses, “As illustrated in FIG. 14, a processor 1402 executes software instructions and interacts with other system components” (para. [0124]).
“... memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: ...” - Wilder discloses, “An addressable memory 1406, coupled to processor 1402, may be used to store data and software instructions to be executed by processor 1402” (para. [0125]).
“... display a calendar and a text input part on the display, the text input part comprising a window for receiving inputs, wherein the window is adjacent to the calendar; ...” - Wilder discloses, “Once loaded, a view with a single entry interface may be displayed (210) to the user. FIG. 3 depicts an embodiment of a view or interface 300 with an interface 305 for entering information according to an embodiment of the present invention. In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 3, the entry interface 305 comprises a single entry box that may be used in conjunction with a calendar application to enter an event. In embodiments, the view may display or include links to additional items or functions. For example, calendar interface 300 displays the user's calendar 310 and links to other functional sections of the application” (para. [0029]). Displaying the calendar and the entry interface, with its entry box for receiving information, wherein the entry box is along a side of the calendars, in Wilder, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of Wilder and Greenblatt (hereinafter referred to as “Wilder/Greenblatt”) teaches limitations below of independent claim 1 that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Wilder:
“... while an area indicating a date among a plurality of areas is highlighted, receive a user input of text in the window displayed on the display, 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 concurrently displayed in the window, ...” - See the aspects of Wilder that have been cited above. Wilder also discloses, “FIG. 4 depicts an example of an alternative view or interface, which view is a day view 400. In the depicted embodiment, the day view 400 may be superimposed over the primary view 310” (para. [0031]), a date of “Friday December 29” being selected in one example (FIG. 4), and text in the entry box reading “Board Meeting 6:30-9:30 PM 12/19” (FIG. 5). Receiving user inputs of text in the entry box of the calendar interface of the display, the text stating that there is a board meeting, in Wilder, reads on the recited “while an area indicating a date among a plurality of dates is highlighted, receive a user input of text in the window displayed on the display, wherein the text comprises a first part associated with a first event” limitation. To the extent that identifying a date is viewed as being something other than highlighting a date, Greenblatt is cited. Greenblatt discloses, “User's agenda 732, displaying events in the user's calendar at or near the time of the event ( e.g., all day event 734-1 and timed event 743-2) as well as the event 736 associated with the event creation link tentatively listed in the user's agenda; in some embodiments, each displayed event in the user's agenda 732 includes a link that, if activated by the user, causes the browser to display an event details page for the selected event” (para. [0171]), “a visual indication 742 of the event date (e.g., the date is bolded),” (para. [0212]), “a movable date selection affordance 744 for selecting a new date in the displayed portion of the interactive calendar” (para. [0213]), and an area displaying multiple times for multiple events including “1:00pm Lunch with Mike” and “8:00 pm Dinner tomorrow?” (FIG. 7D). The date on the calendar being bolded, and the displaying of multiple times for multiple events, in Greenblatt, when applied in the context of the interface of Wilder, reads on the recited “highlighted” and “a second part associated with a second event distinct from the first event concurrently displayed in the window” limitations.
“... wherein the first part indicates first title information of the first event and first time information of the first event, and ...” - See the aspects of Wilder that have been cited above. The entry for the board meeting from 6:30-9:30 PM on 12/19, in Wilder, reads on the recited limitation.
“... wherein the second part indicates second title information of the second event and second time information of the second event; and ...” - See the aspects of Greenblatt that have been cited above. The displaying of event information including the 1:00pm lunch with Mike and the 8:00pm dinner tomorrow, in Greenblatt, reads on the recited limitation.
Greenblatt discloses “methods, systems, graphical user interfaces, and data structures for creating electronic calendar entries” (para. [0003]), similar to the claimed invention and to Wilder. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the calendar interface, of Wilder, to include the additional types of displayed information, of the interface of Greenblatt, for efficiency, as taught by Greenblatt (see para. [0006]). These rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references also apply where the cited references are combined in the discussions of claims below.
The combination of Wilder, Greenblatt, and Groves (hereinafter referred to as “Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves”) teaches limitations below of independent claim 1 that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Wilder/Greenblatt:
“... display, in the area indicating the date, a first calendar image comprising the first title information according to the first time information and a second calendar image comprising the second title information according to the second time information, in response to receiving the user input of the text concurrently comprising the first part and the second part in the window.” - Wilder discloses entries on specific dates being displayed in the calendar, such as “Christmas Day” on cell “25” (Figure 3). Wilder does not, however, appear to show the events from the entry box being shown in the calendar cells. Groves discloses, “Referring to FIG. 3, one implementation of an electronic calendar interface 300 for use with one or more of the systems described herein displays electronic calendar events from a calendar of a given user for a selected month. The electronic calendar interface 300 includes multiple events 302a-e scheduled occur during the displayed month. For example, the electronic calendar interface 300 displays an event 302a titled "code review," an event 302b titled "client demo," an event 302c titled "design meeting," an event 302d titled "birthday dinner," and an event 302e titled "happy hour." The location of each of the events 302a-e within the electronic calendar interface 300 indicates the day on which the event 302a-e occurs. For example, the event 302a occurs on the sixth day of the displayed month. The electronic calendar interface 300 also includes blank periods 304a during which no events are scheduled. The blank periods 304a represent a full day during which no events occur” (col. 9, ll. 17-33), “Referring to FIG. 6, one implementation of the electronic calendar interface 300 for use with one or more of the systems described herein includes an event specification tool 600 that enables the specification of new events to be added to the calendar. The event specification tool 600 is displayed after the "Add Event" button 306 or the "Add Task" button 308 from FIG. 3 is selected. A descriptive title for the new event may be entered into a title text field 602, and a date for the new event may be specified in a date text field 604. Time selection boxes 606 may be used to select the time of the event, and a duration selection box 608 may be used to specify the length of the event. A type for the new event may be chosen from a type selection box 610. For example, an event may be categorized as an appointment, a business meeting, a lunch, a personal meeting, or some other category, including both standard categories provided by a calendar system and user defined categories” (col. 10, ll. 20-36), and “In another implementation, the event specification tool 600 also enables the modification of existing events. The tool 600 may be presented for an existing event with the details of the existing event already specified” (col. 10, ll. 52-55). The displaying, in the dated cells of the calendar, visual representations of events and associated time ranges for the events, in Groves, when applied to represent the events entered into the calendar, in Wilder, reads on the recited limitation.
Groves discloses “electronic calendar events” (col. 1, ll. 13 and 14) and “Scheduling” (col. 1, l. 20), similar to the claimed invention and to Wilder/Greenblatt. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the calendar interface, of Wilder, to include the display elements, of Groves, for informative purposes, as “The location of each of the events 302a-e within the electronic calendar interface 300 indicates the day on which the event 302a-e occurs,” per Groves (col. 9, ll. 25-28). These rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references also apply where the cited references are combined in the discussions of claims below.
Regarding claim 2, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the first part includes: a first text part representing the first time information associated with first title information, and a second text part representing the first title information, ...” - See the aspects of Wilder that have been cited above. The event entries with alphanumeric characters defining events and their times, in Wilder, reads on the recited limitation.
“... wherein the second part includes: a third text part representing the second time information associated with second title information, and a fourth text part representing the second title information.” - See the aspects of Wilder and Groves that have been cited above. The multiple event entries, each with alphanumeric characters defining events and their times, in Groves (or in Wilder and Groves), read on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: based on identifying the first and the second time information, change the first text part to a first image representing the first time information and the third text part to a second image representing the second time information.” - See the aspects of Groves that have been cited above. Based on identifying the multiple times for multiple events, changing the information displayed in the dated cells of the calendar to reflect the times and events, in Groves, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: restore, in response to another user input related to the first image among the first image and the second image, the first image to the first text part, and ...” - See the aspects of Groves that have been cited above. Adding information for events, displaying the event information in date cells of the calendar, and presenting the information for the events so they can be modified, via the interfaces shown in FIGS. 3 and 6 of Groves, reads on the recited limitation.
“... based on the first image being restored to the first text part, identifying the first text part and the second part as the first title information.” - See the aspects of Groves that have been cited above. Identifying the modified event information pertaining to the event type or description, in Groves, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 5, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 4, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: maintain, based on the first image being restored to the first text part, the fourth text part as the second title information.” - See the aspects of Greenblatt and Groves that have been cited above. Maintaining events and times shown in Greenblatt, even as other events and times under go modification, as in Groves, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 4, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: in response to the another user input being related to the first image, change the first time information of the first event to a predetermined time.” - See the aspects of Groves that have been cited above. Modifying events and times related to the events and times displayed in the calendar date cells, in Groves, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: based on setting information for a software application having a designated value, identify the first text part and the second text part as the first title information of the first event and identify the third text part and the fourth text part as the second title information of the second event.” - See the aspects of Wilder and Greenblatt that have been cited above. Based on the code of the software having elements serving to identify, from text, multiple events and times for the events, in Wilder/Greenblatt, such aspects of Wilder/Greenblatt read on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 7, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: based on the setting information for the software application having a second value, identify the second text part as the first title information of the first event and identify the fourth text part as the second title information of the second event.” - See the aspects of Wilder and Greenblatt that have been cited above. Based on the code of the software having elements serving to identify, from text, multiple events and times for the events, in Wilder/Greenblatt, such aspects of Wilder/Greenblatt read on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: identify a divider part for dividing a first event and a second event, in the text, and ...” - Greenblatt discloses, “Informal Meetings will take place on April 11 at 8pm and April 25 at 8pm” (FIG. 7I). Any wording indicative of multiple events, in Greenblatt, reads on the recited limitation.
“... based on the divider part, identify that the first text part and the third text part represent time information.” - See the aspects of Greenblatt that have been cited above. The identification of times of 8pm on different dates, in Greenblatt, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 2, wherein the first text part and the third text part comprise a prepositional phrase respectively, and ...” - See the aspects of Greenblatt that have been cited above. The words “on” and “at” in Greenblatt, read on the recited limitation.
“... wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: identify, based on the first text part, a first time interval, and identify, based on the third text part, a second time interval.” - See the aspects of Greenblatt that have been cited above. Interpreting written text about events and times, in Greenblatt, reads on the recited limitation. See also the start times and end times depicted in the drawings of both Wilder and Groves.
Regarding claim 11, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: identify, based on the first time interval, start time information of the first event and end time information of the first event from the first time information, and ...” - See the aspects of Wilder and Groves that have been cited above. The event information including event descriptors and times for the events, in Wilder and Groves, reads on the recited limitation.
“... identify, based on the second time interval, start time information of the second event and end time information of the second event from the second time information.” - See the aspects of Wilder and Groves that have been cited above. Identifying starting and ending times for multiple events, as depicted in the events in at least Figure 5 of Wilder and Fig. 3 of Groves, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 12, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: identify the first text part as a start time of the first event from the first time information, ...” - See the aspects of Wilder that have been cited above. Text specifying the beginning of a time interval, in Wilder (see Figure 5), reads on the recited limitation.
“... identify, based on the first title information, a type of the first event, ...” - See the aspects of Wilder that have been cited above. Text specifying the type of event, in Wilder (see Figure 5), reads on the recited limitation.
“... identify, based on the type of the first event, end time information of the first event, and ...” - See the aspects of Wilder that have been cited above. Text specifying the ending of a time interface, in Wilder (see Figure 5), reads on the recited limitation.
“... display the first title information, the start time information of the first event, and the end time information of the first event in the calendar.” - See the aspects of Groves that have been cited above. The events and time intervals depicted in the date cells of the calendar in Groves, read on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 13, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: receive at least one touch input on the first area among the plurality of areas representing a plurality of dates in the calendar, and ...” - See the aspects of Wilder that have been cited above. Wilder also discloses, “wherein the display and the input device form a touch-sensitive screen” (claim 18). Receiving information via the touch-sensitive screen displaying the calendar and entry window, in Wilder, reads on the recited limitation.
“... highlight, among the plurality of areas, the area.” - See the aspects of Greenblatt that have been cited above. Greenblatt also discloses, “a touch sensitive display screen” (para. [0032]). Receiving inputs for highlighting dates on a calendar with bolding, using the touch sensitive display screen similar to the one in Wilder, per Greenblatt, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 14, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: receive at least one touch input on another area among the plurality of areas representing a plurality of dates in the calendar, ...” - See the aspects of Wilder and Greenblatt that have been cited above. The use of the touch-sensitive screen, of Wilder, to select and bold other dates on calendars, in Greenblatt, reads on the recited limitation.
“... in response to the at least one touch input, display a pop-up window including another text input part with at least one event set at a date corresponding to the another area, superimposed on the calendar, and ...” - See the aspects of Wilder, Greenblatt, and Groves that have been cited above. In response to use of the touch-sensitive screen, of Wilder, to cause displaying of windows that include areas for adding or modifying events information, as in Greenblatt and Groves (see FIG. 7D and FIG. 6, respectively), reads on the recited limitation.
“... based on a user input to the another text input part, display at least one calendar image associated with the at least one event in the another area.” - See the aspects of Groves that have been cited above. The displaying of entered events and time information in another date cell(s) of the calendar, in Groves, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 15, Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves teaches the following limitations:
“The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the area corresponds to a current date in the calendar.” - See the aspects of Wilder and Greenblatt that have been cited above. The identifying of the day of the calendar that is the current date, in Wilder and/or Greenblatt, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claims 16-20, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-5, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1-5. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1-5 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 16-20. Claims 16-20 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Wilder/Greenblatt/Groves.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 12-14 of the Amendment/Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. More specifically, with respect to Step 2A of the multi-step eligibility analysis specified in MPEP 2106, the applicant argues that the pending claims are analogous to Example 42 of the 2019 PEG (see Amendment/Response, p. 13). The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. Only claim 1 of Example 42 was deemed eligible. According to the reasoning the 2019 PEG, “The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user” (p. 18 and 19). Claim 1 of Example 42 explicitly recites remote access to users, updating in real time, and standardized format. The applicant’s claims, on the other hand, lack any mention of remote access to users, updating in real time, and standardized format, or anything analogous. As such, the applicant’s claims are not eligible for the same reasons as claim 1 of Example 42. The applicant’s claims are closer to ineligible claim 2 of Example 42 that to claim 1 of Example 42. For at least these reasons, the claims fail to meet the criteria for eligibility of Step 2A (Prong Two, in particular).
With respect to Step 2B of the multi-step eligibility analysis, the applicant argues that the claim recitations amount to significantly more because of the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of claim features (see Amendment/Response, pp. 13 and 14). The examiner finds the arguments unpersuasive. As explained in the 35 USC 101 section above, the additional elements of the claims are generic, conventional computer hardware. Their purpose in the claims is to perform steps in accordance with their conventional or usual operation. Most of the additional elements of the claims are explicitly mentioned as well-understood, routine, and conventional in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Additional elements that are not explicitly mentioned in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) are described as indicating ineligibility in other sections of MPEP 2106.05 (see the 35 USC 101 section above for detailed explanations). For at least these reasons, the claims fail to meet the criteria for eligibility of Step 2B.
On pp. 14-19 of the Amendment/Response, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejections under 35 USC 103, in view of combinations of the cited Wilder, Miksovsky, and Byrne references. The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See, for example, references to Greenblatt and Groves in the 35 USC 103 section above.
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. 2012/0029964 A1 to Tengler et al. discloses, “A method for updating an electronic calendar in a vehicle involves uploading an appointment to the electronic calendar, where the appointment includes a description of an event, a time block for the event, and a travel time preceding the time block. An alert is set in a telematics unit of the vehicle, where the alert notifies a vehicle occupant of the appointment. The alert is configured to be activated in response to a trigger. At a time subsequent to the time block of the event, one of i) a memo is uploaded to the electronic calendar indicating that the alert was activated, or ii) another memo is uploaded to the electronic calendar indicating that the alert was not activated” (Abstract).
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0095938 A1 to Monte discloses, “A system, computer-readable medium, and computer-implemented method, including receiving first temporal information relating to one or more calendar events, the calendar events each having a duration equal to a day or less; receiving second temporal information relating to one or more timeline events, the timeline events each having a duration equal to or greater than a day; generating a user interface including user interface representations of an integrated calendar and timeline visualization to, in response to user input, navigate and control aspects of both the calendar events and the timeline events; and presenting, in response to user input via the user interface, a synchronized navigation and control of both the calendar events and the timeline events” (Abstract).
U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2018/0121881 A1 to Kumar et al. discloses, “Template based calendar events with graphic enrichment are provided. In some examples, upon receiving a request to create a calendar event, an event creation prompt may be presented. The prompt may include an event template selection element comprising visual aids, such as icons or emojis, that each represent different event templates for selection. Upon receiving a visual aid selection, information associated with the user requesting the calendar event may be retrieved based on the selected visual aid to infer one or more aspects of the requested event such as title, timing, and location. A suggested event with the inferred aspects may be presented to the user and upon receiv