DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The following is a Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication on 01/12/2026, Applicant on 02/02/2026, amended Claims 1, 13, 18, cancelled Claims 28, 35, 38-45, 47-52, and added new Claims 53-68. Claims 1, 13, 18, 46, 53-68 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections set forth in the previous action. The rejections are maintained below.
Applicants’ amendments render moot the 35 USC 103 rejections set forth in the previous action in view of substantially new and updated grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicants’ amendments. Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn in view of the new grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicants’ amendments, as set forth below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks filed 02/02/2026 do not advance arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 or 35 USC 103. Examiner respectfully points to the updated rejections as outlined below.
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 1,13,18,46, 53-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
The claims are directed to an apparatus and method. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that is directed to a judicial expectation, namely a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent Claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea and will henceforth be used as a representative claim for the 101 rejection until otherwise noted. Claim 1 recites:
A device, comprising: at least one processor system comprising one or more processors; and storage accessible to the at least one processor system and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor system to: present, on a display, a first graphical user interface (GUI), the first GUI comprising an audit selector that is selectable to command the processor system to audit upcoming calendar events in an electronic calendar and suggest one or more of the upcoming calendar events for removal from the electronic calendar: responsive to selection of the audit selector, access metadata regarding at least one past meeting that is indicated in the electronic calendar; process the metadata using an artificial neural network (ANN) trained for pattern recognition to identify a suggestion to present to a user, the suggestion relating to one or more of: whether the user would like to remove an indication of a future meeting from the electronic calendar, whether the user would like to change an expected attendance status for the future meeting; and based on identification of the suggestion and based on the audit selector being selected, present a second GUI on the display, the second GUI indicating the suggestion.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute an abstract idea because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers an abstract idea.
“access metadata…process the metadata…to identify a suggestion…”, “the suggestion relating to one or more of…” recite abstract ideas - namely, mental processes that could be performed by a human with a pen and paper, per the MPEP, merely adapting them into the context of a technological environment with computing parts does not preclude them from being abstract. Further, as the suggestion pertains to behavior of the user, “identify a suggestion to present to a user..” recites a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity, namely that of Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Independent Claims 13 and 18 recite at least one abstract idea by virtue of reciting substantially similar limitations.
Dependent Claims 46, 53-68 recite at least one abstract idea by virtue of their dependency from independent claims reciting at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into practical application. As noted in the MPEP, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements, such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A device, comprising: at least one processor system comprising one or more processors; and storage accessible to the at least one processor system and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor system to: present, on a display, a first graphical user interface (GUI), the first GUI comprising an audit selector that is selectable to command the processor system to audit upcoming calendar events in an electronic calendar and suggest one or more of the upcoming calendar events for removal from the electronic calendar: responsive to selection of the audit selector, access metadata regarding at least one past meeting that is indicated in the electronic calendar; process the metadata using an artificial neural network (ANN) trained for pattern recognition to identify a suggestion to present to a user, the suggestion relating to one or more of: whether the user would like to remove an indication of a future meeting from the electronic calendar, whether the user would like to change an expected attendance status for the future meeting; and based on identification of the suggestion and based on the audit selector being selected, present a second GUI on the display, the second GUI indicating the suggestion.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
“A device, comprising…processors…storage…”, “an electronic calendar”, “using an artificial neural network (ANN)..”, “graphical user interface (GUI)…”, “a second GUI”.
When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use under Step 2A Prong Two. The heart of the claim lies with the mental process of accessing data and performing a mental judgement by way of analyzing metadata. That the configuration of a device, a neural network, or a GUI are recited is secondary to the logic of the fundamental mental process embodied by the claims.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing an abstract idea.
Independent Claims 13 and 18 do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application by analogous reasoning.
Claim 53 recites “based on selection of the audit selection, audit…”
Claim 60 recites “wherein the second GUI indicates…”
Claim 61 recites “wherein the second GUI comprises a first selector…wherein the second GUI comprises a second selector”
Claim 62 recites “wherein the second selector is selectable to delete…”
Claim 63 recites “a first selector different…a third GUI on the display…”
Claim 64 recites “a third GUI on the display…a first option that is selectable…a second option that is selectable”
Claim 65 recites “wherein the third GUI comprises a setting…”
Claim 66 recites “wherein the third GUI comprises an input box”.
Claim 67 recites “wherein the third GUI comprises different options to select respective…”,
Claim 68 recites “wherein the third GUI comprises a privacy option that is selectable…”
These additional limitations do not serve to integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application by analogous reasoning.
Claims 46, 54-59 do not recite additional elements beyond those found in Claims from which they depend and therefore do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to generic computing components that are merely used
as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea and/or do no more than
generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular
technological environment or field of use. Further, looking at the additional
elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already
present when considering the additional elements individually.
Independent Claims 13 and 18 do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more by analogous reasoning.
Claim 53 recites “based on selection of the audit selection, audit…”
Claim 60 recites “wherein the second GUI indicates…”
Claim 61 recites “wherein the second GUI comprises a first selector…wherein the second GUI comprises a second selector”
Claim 62 recites “wherein the second selector is selectable to delete…”
Claim 63 recites “a first selector different…a third GUI on the display…”
Claim 64 recites “a third GUI on the display…a first option that is selectable…a second option that is selectable”
Claim 65 recites “wherein the third GUI comprises a setting…”
Claim 66 recites “wherein the third GUI comprises an input box”.
Claim 67 recites “wherein the third GUI comprises different options to select respective…”,
Claim 68 recites “wherein the third GUI comprises a privacy option that is selectable…”
These additional limitations do not serve to integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more by analogous reasoning.
Claims 46, 54-59 do not recite additional elements beyond those found in Claims from which they depend and therefore do not integrate recited abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 13, 18, 46, 53-58, 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geddes(US 20230033104 A1).
Claims 1, 13, 18
Geddes teaches:
A device, comprising: at least one processor system comprising one or more processors; and storage accessible to the at least one processor system and comprising instructions executable by the at least one processor system to:
See [0118] for hardware details.
present, on a display, a first graphical user interface (GUI), the first GUI comprising an audit selector that is selectable to command the processor system to audit upcoming calendar events in an electronic calendar and suggest one or more of the upcoming calendar events for removal from the electronic calendar:
Regarding requesting an audit in [0083], "A request 410 to analyze a user's calendar over a particular duration may be received from a user, such as from their client device, or it may be generated autonomously by the user's client device or another computing device, such as the user's electronic calendar. In some examples, the video conference provider 310 itself may initiate the request with or without input from the corresponding user. The request in this example identifies the user and provides a time period over which to perform the analysis. For example, FIG. 5A illustrates an example graphical user interface (“GUI”) 500 including a graphical representation of the user's calendar 510 for a particular time period, e.g., a week". Regarding deletion in [0104], "For meetings that the calendar recommendation component 450 has proposed skipping or declining, the notification component 460 may generate and transmit a communication to the host of the meeting declining the meeting invitation. In some examples, the notification component 460 may delete the meeting from the user's calendar, with or without sending a corresponding notification to the meeting host".
responsive to selection of the audit selector, access metadata regarding at least one past meeting that is indicated in the electronic calendar; process the metadata using an artificial neural network (ANN) trained for pattern recognition to identify a suggestion to present to a user,
Meeting analysis relies on load, or user imposed burden information, in [0085], "In this example, the meeting analysis component 420 receives load information and meeting value information from the load determination and meeting value determination components 430, 440, which are discussed in more detail below". This load is calculated from past meeting information in [0087], " To provide input to the trained ML model, the load determination component 424 accesses the engagement information data store 424 to identify past meetings that are similar to a meeting to be analyzed. Past similar meetings may be identified based on the identified meeting as being an instance of a recurring meeting. In some examples, the load determination component 424 may identify past meetings including the same set of participants, the same title or a similar title, the same duration, the same host or organizer, etc". See [0089] for neural networks.
the suggestion relating to one or more of: whether the user would like to remove an indication of a future meeting from the electronic calendar, whether the user would like to change an expected attendance status for the future meeting;
Regarding suggestions in [0101], "The notification component 460 determines a notification to provide and outputs an indication to cause the notification to be provided to the participant. In this example, the notification component determines a notification should be output to the user's calendar based on user-selected notification settings, such as to color code meetings based on whether they should remain unchanged, declined or skipped, attended by audio only, rescheduled, etc. Other types of notifications may include text messages, emails, on-screen pop-up notifications, etc., that identify proposed changes to the user's calendar, including dates and times for meetings that are proposed to be reschedule".
and based on identification of the suggestion and based on the audit selector being selected, present a second GUI on the display, the second GUI indicating the suggestion.
As a visual indicator of recommendations in [0102], "he notification component 460 then, based on the determined notification, outputs an indication of the recommendation. In this example, the indication causes the appearance of the participant's calendar to change as shown in FIG. 5B. In this example, meeting 520a has been marked with right-leaning hash marks, indicating the user should attend the meeting by audio only. Meeting 520b has been marked with cross-hatches to indicate that the user should decline the meeting or skip it. Finally, meetings 520c-d have been marked with left-leaning hash marks, indicating the user should reschedule these meetings".
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claim 46
Geddes teaches:
The device of Claim 1, comprising the display.
See [0118] for hardware details.
Claim 53
Geddes teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to: based on selection of the audit selector, audit upcoming calendar events for only an upcoming threshold amount of time rather than for all upcoming calendar events including those beyond the upcoming threshold amount of time.
Regarding analyzing a particular week in [0070], "For example, a user of the client device 330a may access their electronic calendar and select a particular week (or other duration) to be analyzed".
Claim 54
Geddes teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to: execute gesture recognition to generate at least some of the metadata.
As outlined above, our analysis encompasses load imposed on user, which is determined on the basis of past data. Such past data encompasses the engagement information data store as outlined in [0088], "As discussed above, the engagement information data store 424 stores information gathered from various participants during past meetings. The information may be based on eye-tracking or gaze detection performed on a participant's video feed, detected speaking coming from the participant's video feed, data indicating time spent with video or audio disabled versus enabled, whether the video conference application is in the background or minimized during the meeting and for how long, etc. Some examples may employ semantic analysis of audio streams during the meeting to determine whether the participant is being asked questions, whether the participant is asking questions, whether the participant is being assigned action items, etc".
Claim 55
Geddes teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to: execute action recognition to generate at least some of the metadata.
As outlined above, our analysis encompasses load imposed on user, which is determined on the basis of past data. Such past data encompasses the engagement information data store as outlined in [0088], "As discussed above, the engagement information data store 424 stores information gathered from various participants during past meetings. The information may be based on eye-tracking or gaze detection performed on a participant's video feed, detected speaking coming from the participant's video feed, data indicating time spent with video or audio disabled versus enabled, whether the video conference application is in the background or minimized during the meeting and for how long, etc. Some examples may employ semantic analysis of audio streams during the meeting to determine whether the participant is being asked questions, whether the participant is asking questions, whether the participant is being assigned action items, etc".
Claim 56
Geddes teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to: execute object recognition to generate at least some of the metadata.
It is implicit that tracking eyes or detecting gaze encompasses object recognition as outlined in [0088], "As discussed above, the engagement information data store 424 stores information gathered from various participants during past meetings. The information may be based on eye-tracking or gaze detection performed on a participant's video feed, detected speaking coming from the participant's video feed, data indicating time spent with video or audio disabled versus enabled, whether the video conference application is in the background or minimized during the meeting and for how long, etc. Some examples may employ semantic analysis of audio streams during the meeting to determine whether the participant is being asked questions, whether the participant is asking questions, whether the participant is being assigned action items, etc".
Claim 57
Geddes teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to: execute natural language processing to generate at least some of the metadata.
As outlined above, our analysis encompasses load imposed on user, which is determined on the basis of past data. Such past data encompasses the engagement information data store as outlined in [0088], "As discussed above, the engagement information data store 424 stores information gathered from various participants during past meetings. The information may be based on eye-tracking or gaze detection performed on a participant's video feed, detected speaking coming from the participant's video feed, data indicating time spent with video or audio disabled versus enabled, whether the video conference application is in the background or minimized during the meeting and for how long, etc. Some examples may employ semantic analysis of audio streams during the meeting to determine whether the participant is being asked questions, whether the participant is asking questions, whether the participant is being assigned action items, etc".
Claim 58
Geddes teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to: execute voice recognition to generate at least some of the metadata.
As outlined above, our analysis encompasses load imposed on user, which is determined on the basis of past data. Such past data encompasses the engagement information data store as outlined in [0088], "As discussed above, the engagement information data store 424 stores information gathered from various participants during past meetings. The information may be based on eye-tracking or gaze detection performed on a participant's video feed, detected speaking coming from the participant's video feed, data indicating time spent with video or audio disabled versus enabled, whether the video conference application is in the background or minimized during the meeting and for how long, etc. Some examples may employ semantic analysis of audio streams during the meeting to determine whether the participant is being asked questions, whether the participant is asking questions, whether the participant is being assigned action items, etc".
Claim 63
Geddes teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the second GUI comprises a first selector different from the audit selector, the first selector being associated with a first upcoming event in the electronic calendar, the first selector being selectable to present a third GUI on the display, the third GUI being different from the first and second GUIs, the third GUI comprising plural selectors each associated with a different way to alter the electronic calendar, for the first upcoming event, according to a different respective suggestion associated with each one of the plural selectors.
Note the scope of the suggestions pertain to one or more meetings in [0116], "At block 626, the notification component 460 adjusts the meeting calendar based on the updated schedule, generally as discussed above with respect to FIG. 4. For example, the notification component 460 may decline or delete one or more meetings from the user's calendar. Similarly, it may request one or more meetings be rescheduled or propose a new date or time for a meeting to other attendees. Still other adjustments may be made according to some examples". Note the notification view, a third GUI, and alternate suggestions in [0117], "For example, in some examples, the notification component 460 may receive multiple recommended schedules from the calendar recommendation component 450. The notification component 460 may provide the user with an option to view and select one of the proposed recommendations. After receiving a selection from the user, the notification component 460 may then adjust the meeting calendar according to the received selection".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geddes(US 20230033104 A1) in view of Deole(US 20220327494 A1).
Claim 59
As to Claim 59, Geddes teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Geddes does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Deole teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to: execute keyword recognition to generate at least some of the metadata.
In [0155], "An attendance mode comprising attending only a portion of an event, such as based on timing, topics, mentioned keywords, agenda, speakers, etc., may be recommended if the event is not determined to be as a whole of a relatively high importance to the user, but some topic, keywords, agenda, or scheduled speaker, is determined to be relatively important to the user. The computer system may recommend the user attend only a particular amount of time during the meeting if the computer system determines a more important event overlaps the event. These and other factors may be weighed and/or input into a neural network which may be trained to recommend the attendance mode to be selected by the user".
Geddes discloses a system for recommending calendar adjustments for a user's personal schedule. Deole discloses a system meant to recommend event status updates in a user's personal calendar. Each reference discloses solutions for intelligent calendar auditing. Extending the keyword parsing as recorded in Deole to the system of Geddes is applicable as they are both directed to the shared field of endeavor of calendar auditing and management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the keyword parsing as taught in Deole to the system of Geddes. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adopting keyword recognition would enable users to have more granular data to base recommendations upon.
Claims 60-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geddes(US 20230033104 A1) in view of Shetty(US 20220180328 A1).
Claim 60
As to Claim 60, Geddes teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Geddes does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Shetty teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the second GUI indicates an inferred justification for the suggestion.
See Fig. 4A-4D for display of rationale along with the suggestion in [0042], "Prompting the user can include displaying a notification at the OS level on the user device, for example. It could also include, additionally or alternatively, displaying a notification within an application such as a calendar application 112 or email application 114. The notification within the application can include displaying a GUI window with an explanation and options for the user to take an action. For example, the GUI window can explain that the user has not attended a recurring meeting for a threshold number of times and, accordingly, ask the user if they would like to cancel the recurring event to remove it from their calendar. The user can select a GUI element to cancel the meeting (occurrence or series) or to maintain the meeting".
Geddes discloses a system for recommending calendar adjustments for a user's personal schedule. Shetty discloses a system meant to manage recurring events in user's personal calendar. Each reference discloses solutions for intelligent calendar auditing. Extending the recurring event management as recorded in Shetty to the system of Geddes is applicable as they are both directed to the shared field of endeavor of calendar auditing and management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the recurring event management as taught in Shetty to the system of Geddes. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adding such features would enable users to manage entire series of recurring events, a tedious, manual task otherwise.
Claim 61
As to Claim 61, Geddes teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Geddes does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Shetty teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the second GUI comprises a first selector that is selectable to delete a single future upcoming calendar event from the electronic calendar, and wherein the second GUI comprises a second selector, the second selector being selectable to delete plural future upcoming calendar events of the same nature from the electronic calendar, the first and second selectors being different from each other and different from the audit selector.
See Fig. 4A in light of [0066], "Regarding the GUI elements 464, 466 of FIG. 4A, GUI element 464 corresponds to a selection to cancel the recurring event, while GUI element 466 corresponds to declining to cancel the recurring event. However, additional or alternative GUI elements could be displayed here. For example, an option can be provided to the user for maintaining this occurrence of the recurring calendar event but canceling future occurrences of the event"..
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the recurring event management as taught in Shetty to the system of Geddes. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 60.
Claim 62
As to Claim 62, Geddes combined with Shetty teaches all the limitations of Claim 61 as outlined above.
Geddes does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Shetty teaches:
The device of Claim 61, wherein the second selector is selectable to delete all future upcoming calendar events related to a particular recurring meeting.
See Fig. 4A in light of [0066], "Regarding the GUI elements 464, 466 of FIG. 4A, GUI element 464 corresponds to a selection to cancel the recurring event, while GUI element 466 corresponds to declining to cancel the recurring event. However, additional or alternative GUI elements could be displayed here. For example, an option can be provided to the user for maintaining this occurrence of the recurring calendar event but canceling future occurrences of the event"..
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the recurring event management as taught in Shetty to the system of Geddes. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 60.
Claims 64-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geddes(US 20230033104 A1) in view of Jain(US 9288275 B2).
Claim 64
As to Claim 64, Geddes teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as outlined above.
Geddes teaches:
suggest removals of upcoming calendar events that are audited in the future…suggest attendance status changes of upcoming calendar events that are audited in the future
Regarding suggestions in [0101], "The notification component 460 determines a notification to provide and outputs an indication to cause the notification to be provided to the participant. In this example, the notification component determines a notification should be output to the user's calendar based on user-selected notification settings, such as to color code meetings based on whether they should remain unchanged, declined or skipped, attended by audio only, rescheduled, etc. Other types of notifications may include text messages, emails, on-screen pop-up notifications, etc., that identify proposed changes to the user's calendar, including dates and times for meetings that are proposed to be reschedule".
Geddes does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Jain teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to:present a third GUI on the display, the third GUI being a settings GUI and being different from the first and second GUIs, the third GUI comprising a first option that is selectable to configure the processor system to ... removals of upcoming calendar events ... the third GUI comprising a second option that is selectable to configure the processor system to ... attendance status changes of upcoming calendar events ... the second option being different from the first option
Regarding a permissions GUI in Col 25 Lines 23-31, "In accordance with the present disclosure, the social networking platform 100 further includes a privacy editor (not shown in figures) which enables users to edit their data privacy preferences in the form of access privileges and action permissions assigned to various user roles, including self, event host, event attendee, event invitee, friend of a user, public user and anonymous user, in respect of at least users' registration information, user event related information and user's calendar related information". See Col 14 Line 47 - Col 15 Line 13 for outlining of specific permissions. Note deletion and editing of event information, an alteration of the event we understand to encompass an attendance status in Col 14 Lines 55-60, "For example, an event-related uploaded resource may not be deleted and edited by an event invitee if he/she not owner of the resource. However, an event host, who always has the highest level of privileges in the context of the hosted event, is granted privileges to access, delete and edit the event-related resources uploaded by any user".
Geddes discloses a system for recommending calendar adjustments for a user's personal schedule. Jain discloses a system meant to analyze user behavior to optimize event planning in a shared social networking platform. Each reference discloses solutions for intelligent calendar auditing. Extending the data privacy controls as recorded in Jain to the system of Geddes is applicable as they are both directed to the shared field of endeavor and problem of event planning in light of user analytics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the data privacy controls as taught in Jain to the system of Geddes. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adding such features would enable users to control the scope of the recommendations, enabling a more flexible system of recommendation.
Claim 65
As to Claim 65, Geddes combined with Jain teaches all the limitations of Claim 64 as discussed above.
Geddes teaches:
The device of Claim 64, wherein the third GUI comprises a setting at which the user can establish a threshold amount of future time for which upcoming calendar events should be audited responsive to selection of the audit selector.
In [0070], "For example, a user of the client device 330a may access their electronic calendar and select a particular week (or other duration) to be analyzed. In some examples, the user may ask that the duration be re-analyzed when a new meeting invitation is received, but before the user has accepted or declined the invitation. In still further examples, the user may request that the video conference provider analyze all meetings for a particular week, bi-week (a two-week period), month, etc. or establish a routine process by which a user's meetings are analyzed for a particular duration, such as at the end of the preceding week. Such systems may allow the user to evaluate their schedule for the next week (or other duration) to help them plan their week and better understand their schedule".
Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geddes(US 20230033104 A1) in view of Jain(US 9288275 B2) in further view of Roth(US 9679274 B1).
Claim 66
As to Claim 66, Geddes combined with Jain teaches all the limitations of Claim 65 as discussed above.
Geddes teaches:
, the threshold amount of future time.
In [0070], "For example, a user of the client device 330a may access their electronic calendar and select a particular week (or other duration) to be analyzed. In some examples, the user may ask that the duration be re-analyzed when a new meeting invitation is received, but before the user has accepted or declined the invitation. In still further examples, the user may request that the video conference provider analyze all meetings for a particular week, bi-week (a two-week period), month, etc. or establish a routine process by which a user's meetings are analyzed for a particular duration, such as at the end of the preceding week. Such systems may allow the user to evaluate their schedule for the next week (or other duration) to help them plan their week and better understand their schedule".
Geddes combined with Jain does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Roth teaches:
The device of Claim 65, wherein the third GUI comprises an input box to which numerical input may be provided to establish, in terms of days
Regarding GUI display for time listing in Col 10 Lines 12-23, "In an embodiment, the user is able to use a user interface 300 to input a start date and a start time for the appointment. In this particular example, such abilities are provided through dropdown elements of the user interface 300. A user may, for example, select a start time dropdown box which may cause the user interface 300 to display a monthly calendar with selectable days which may allow for the navigation to other months with selectable days. Similarly, a user may use a time drop down menu to select from a list of times. A user may concurrently or alternatively have the ability, through the user interface 300, to type in dates and times or provide such information in other ways"
Geddes combined with Jain discloses a system for recommending calendar adjustments for a user's personal schedule. Roth discloses a system for managing calendar data access. Each reference discloses solutions for intelligent calendar auditing. Extending the granular time specification as recorded in Roth to the system of Geddes combined with Jain is applicable as they are both directed to the shared field of endeavor of user calendaring and schedule management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the granular time entry as taught in Roth to the system of Geddes combined with Jain. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adding such a GUI to enter days would provide users with more granular control over audit periods; the means for specifying such are left unspecified in Geddes.
Claims 67-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geddes(US 20230033104 A1) in view of Jain(US 9288275 B2) in further view of Szeto(US 20180082264 A1).
Claim 67
As to Claim 67, Geddes combined with Jain teaches all the limitations of Claim 65 as discussed above.
Geddes combined with Jain does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Szeto teaches:
The device of Claim 65, wherein the third GUI comprises different options to select respective different types of metadata to use to identify suggestions to present as part of future calendar audits.
We construe the control of access to different types of information to amount to a selection of which data can be used for downstream analysis in [0068], "The privacy setting specification may be provided at different levels of granularity. For example, the privacy setting may identify specific information to be shared with other users; the privacy setting identifies a work phone number or a specific set of related information, such as, personal information including profile photo, home phone number, and status. Alternatively, the privacy setting may apply to all the information associated with the user. The specification of the set of entities that can access particular information can also be specified at various levels of granularity. Various sets of entities with which information can be shared may include, for example, all friends of the user, all friends of friends, all applications, or all external systems 620. One embodiment allows the specification of the set of entities to comprise an enumeration of entities".
Geddes combined with Jain discloses a system for recommending calendar adjustments for a user's personal schedule. Szeto discloses a system meant to optimize planning and scheduling. Each reference discloses solutions for intelligent calendar auditing. Extending the data privacy controls as recorded in Szeto to the system of Geddes combined with Jain is applicable as they are both directed to the shared field of endeavor and problem of event planning in light of user analytics.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the data privacy controls as taught in Szeto to the system of Geddes combined with Jain. Motivation to do so comes from the fact that the claim is plainly directed to the predictable result of combining known items in the prior art, with the expected benefit that adding such features would enable users to have control over the plethora of metadata and analysis captured by the system of Geddes that could potentially prove invasive.
Claim 68
As to Claim 68, Geddes combined with Jain teaches all the limitations of Claim 64 as discussed above.
Geddes combined with Jain does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Szeto teaches:
The device of Claim 64, wherein the third GUI comprises a privacy option that is selectable to command the processor system to keep the user's past meeting metadata private and not share the past meeting metadata with third parties.
In [0067], "The authorization server 644 enforces one or more privacy settings of the users of the social networking system 630. A privacy setting of a user determines how particular information associated with a user can be shared. The privacy setting comprises the specification of particular information associated with a user and the specification of the entity or entities with whom the information can be shared. Examples of entities with which information can be shared may include other users, applications, external systems 620, or any entity that can potentially access the information".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the data privacy controls as taught in Szeto to the system of Geddes combined with Jain. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 67.
Conclusion
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 THEODORE L XIE whose telephone number is (571)272-7102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/THEODORE XIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3623
/CHARLES GUILIANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights