DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner's communication of October 2, 2025, Applicant, on November 25, 2025, amended claims 1, 13, 18, cancelled Claims 21-27, 29-34, 36-37, and added new Claims 38-52. Claims 1, 13, 18, 28, 35 and 38-52 are now pending in this application and have been rejected below.
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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 25, 2025 has been entered.
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 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 Therefore, these rejections are withdrawn in view of the new grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicants’ amendments, as set forth below.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 – 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the ANN as claimed is not generic, but rather represents a specific implementation of neural network. Applicant further argues that the ANN as claimed further serves to render the limitations of Claim 1 unable to be performed in the human mind, and that therefore the Claim cannot be said to be directed to a mental process. Applicant follows a similar line of logic in asserting that the GUI on a display cannot be performable in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Citing 2106.05(f)(2), under Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception “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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”. That the artificial neural network is “trained for pattern recognition to identify a suggestion to present to a user” does not serve to serve to render it a specific architecture. Artificial neural networks are well known in the art,. Examiner respectfully notes, per the Final Rejection filed 10/02/2025, the assertion isn’t that the functionality of an artificial neural network or a GUI is able to be performed wholly in the human mind, it is that in the language of the Claims, what the artificial neural network serves to do, namely process metadata and present a suggestion to a user, is fundamentally a mental process. Prescribing an intended use of a generic component, which is what employing a broad “artificial neural network” to analyze metadata and offer a suggestion amounts to, is not a particular application or significantly more, in 2106.05(h), under Field of Use and Technological Environment, “As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Analogous reasoning applies with respect to a GUI.
Applicant further asserts that sufficient explanation has not been provided regarding the eligibility of certain dependent claims; Examiner points to further analysis outlined in the updated 35 USC 101 Rejection.
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 1,13,18,28,35 and 38-52 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: access metadata regarding at least one past meeting that is indicated in an 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 ANN using a weight given to the metadata to help identify the suggestion, the weight being based on a decay factor such that the weight decreases over time, the suggestion relating to: whether the user would like to schedule a viewing of a video recording of a future meeting for a later time after the future meeting ends; and based on identification of the suggestion, present a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the GUI indicating the suggestion and comprising a selector that is selectable to schedule the viewing for the later time via the electronic calendar.
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…using a weight given to the metadata…”, “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, “the suggestion relating to whether the user would like to..” 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 28,35, 38-52 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: access metadata regarding at least one past meeting that is indicated in an 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 ANN using a weight given to the metadata to help identify the suggestion, the weight being based on a decay factor such that the weight decreases over time, the suggestion relating to: whether the user would like to schedule a viewing of a video recording of a future meeting for a later time after the future meeting ends; and based on identification of the suggestion, present a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the GUI indicating the suggestion and comprising a selector that is selectable to schedule the viewing for the later time via the electronic calendar.
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)..”, “present a graphical user interface (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.
Claims 28, 35, 52 recite “the settings GUI”.
Claims 38, 47, 49 recite “generate, in the electronic calendar, a calendar event”.
Claims 39, 48, 50 recite “an email notification”.
Claim 41 recites “a pop-up notification”.
Claim 43 recites “delete an event from the electronic calendar”.
Claim 45 recites “video conference between remotely-located people and as recorded by a video conferencing server”.
These additional limitations do not serve to integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application by analogous reasoning.
Claims 40, 42, 44, 46, 51 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.
Claims 28, 35, 52 recite “the settings GUI”.
Claims 38, 47, 49 recite “generate, in the electronic calendar, a calendar event”.
Claims 39, 48, 50 recite “an email notification”.
Claim 41 recites “a pop-up notification”.
Claim 43 recites “delete an event from the electronic calendar”.
Claim 45 recites “video conference between remotely-located people and as recorded by a video conferencing server”.
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 40, 42, 44, 46, 51 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 § 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.
Claims 1,13,18,28,35 and 38, 44-47, 49, 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deole(US 20220327494 A1) in view of Kume(US 20070185907 A1) in further view of Herrin(US 20190327362 A1).
Claims 1, 13, 18
As to Claim 1,
Deole 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: access metadata regarding at least one past meeting that is indicated in an electronic calendar;
In [0044], "The server 111 may comprise any type of computer device that can communicate on the network 110, such as a server, a PersonalComputer (“PC”), a video phone, a video conferencing system, a cellulartelephone, a Personal Digital Assistant (“PDA”), a tablet device, a notebookdevice, a smartphone, and/or the like. Although only one server 111 isshown for convenience in FIG. 1, any number of servers 111 may beconnected to the network 110 for managing electronic calendar applicationitems". In [0133], “The computer system may also access informationrelating to the user's overall workload, areas of expertise, job duties,corporate hierarchy, e.g., an identity of the user's manager, peers, etc.Using the calendar data as well as other data available to the computersystem, the computer system may be configured to analyze past meetings.For example, the computer system may be configured to determine whatmeetings the user has been invited to and/or attended in the past, whattopics were discussed in the past meetings, whether the user participatedin the past meetings, which attendance mode the user used to attend each past meeting, whether a particular attendance mode was recommended tothe user, whether the user accepted the recommended attendance mode,etc”.
process the metadata using an artificial neural network (ANN) trained for pattern recognition to identify a suggestion to present to a user, the ANN ..., the suggestion relating to whether the user would like to
In [0133], "The computer system may also access information relating tothe user's overall workload, areas of expertise, job duties, corporatehierarchy, e.g., an identity of the user's manager, peers, etc. Using thecalendar data as well as other data available to the computer system, thecomputer system may be configured to analyze past meetings". In [0143], “In some embodiments, the neural network 800 may be trained torecommend an attendance mode for the invited user based on an analysisof data associated with the user and data associated with the eventassociated with the invitation. Generally speaking, the neuralnetwork 800 may generate a recommendation by selecting whichattendance mode will best suit the invited user. Factors which may be usedto select the best attendance mode may be, for example, risk of causingunnecessary stress, the importance of the invited user to the event, theimportance of the event to the user, etc”.
and based on identification of the suggestion, present a graphical user interface (GUI) on a display, the GUI indicating the suggestion and comprising a selector that is selectable to
In [0142], "At 1015, a recommendation for an attendance mode for the user to use to attend the meeting associated with the invitation may be generated. It should be appreciated that an attendance mode may comprise any one of attending in person, attending remotely, attending only a portion, attending by viewing or listening to a recording after the event, not attending at all, or any of the means of participating in an event as described herein". See Fig. 4B for an example GUI, with [0040] outlining possible hardware for the display.
Deole does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Kume teaches:
using a weight given to the metadata to help identify the suggestion,the weight being based on a decay factor such that the weightdecreases over time
Kume outlines how metadata might be weighted with such a factor in mindin [0084-0085], “The criterion <1> is used to, for example, attenuatethe strength of relationships between people corresponding to the numberof days that have passed from the date and the time of the start to thecurrent date and the current time. That is, how much time has passed iscalculated referring to the current date and the strength of the relationshipsbetween the linked metadata is weighted corresponding to the time thathas passed. As a model of a calculating method of weighting, the followingmodel can be considered. When the newest informal community having anactivity of some degree is desired to be extracted, a model that is appliedwith a linear function and has the weight thereof decreasing monotonouslyas the time passes, is utilized. As a linear function that calculates a weight,for example, the following Equation 1 is applied. g=(1/d)xt+1 (1) where g isthe weight, d is the number of days for which data exist in the likedmetadata, and t is the number of days that have passed.”
Deole discloses a system for providing recommendations in the
context of an electronic calendar. Kume discloses means to analyze
metadata to provide analysis on relationships between people, Each
reference discloses means of analyzing of calendar/scheduling metadata. Extending the analytical methods of Kume to Deole is applicable as Kume serves to enrich the analytical methodology of Deole.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to extend the metadata analysis of Kume and apply that to the system of Deole. 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 such analytical methodology would enable users to receive more granular analysis and nuanced recommendations, taking more salient information into account.
Deole combined with Kume does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Herrin teaches:
schedule a viewing of a video recording of a future meeting for a later time after the future meeting ends
In [0040], "In a further embodiment, upon receiving the recording and/or transcription, the electronic calendar of the user, e.g., IBM®, Lotus®, Notes®, etc., may automatically schedule a date and time to playback the recording or transcription for the user. For example, the electronic calendar may make an entry in the electronic calendar in an available time slot during which the user has not make any entry".
schedule the viewing for the later time via the electronic calendar.
See [0040] above. The electronic calendar receives the updated entry for viewing.
Deole combined with Kume discloses a system for providing recommendations in the context of an electronic calendar. Herrin discloses a means to manage recordings in case of conflicts, Each reference discloses means of analyzing and managing calendar data. Extending the recording scheduling of Herrin to the system of Deole combined with Kume is applicable as they are both directed to the shared task of calendar management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the effective filling date of the invention to extend the recording scheduling of Herrin and apply that to the system of Deole combined with Kume.
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 such recording management would enable users to manage saved recordings in the future. See [0071] of Deole; there already exists means of providing recordings to a user, we are merely organizing the access of said recordings in Herrin.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 1.
Claim 18 additionally recites “At least one computer readable storage medium (CRSM) that is not a transitory signal”. See [0047] of Deole.
Claims 28, 35, 52
As to Claim 28, Deole combined with Kume and Herrin teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Deole teaches:
the settings GUI comprising an option that is selectable to configure the processor system to present electronic calendar suggestions in the future based on metadata from past meeting instances.
A GUI of Deole to modulate how metadata can be processed for scheduling future meetings is also taught, in [0180], "At 1021, after a user responds to the recommended attendance mode, the user's response may be received by the computer system. For example, a user may edit the attendance mode and thus not accept the recommendation. As such, in addition to selecting the attendance mode, the user can also be provided an edit box in which the user can describe the reason why he or she chose an attendance mode other than the mode recommended by the system. In some embodiments, a drop-down or other type of list may be provided such that a user may be enabled to select a reason. The reasons in the list may be associated with reason codes for the user to select regarding why he or she chose a different mode of attendance. In some embodiments, the reason provide by the user in the form of text can be processed using Natural Language Processing (NLP) technology to understand user preferences and feed them back into the system for future training purposes".
Deole combined with Kume does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Herrin teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the GUI is a first GUI, and wherein the instructions are executable to: present a settings GUI on the display, the settings GUI being different from the first GUI,
Note the support of a separate GUI to configure settings pertaining to scheduling in [0051], "The electronic calendar of the user may allow a priority setting: for example, an on-line electronic meeting invitation from a particular person may have the highest priority and therefore overrides tasks scheduled during that on-line electronic meeting. Each recording and transcription may have a different priority. The electronic calendar may schedule a higher priority transcription to be viewed by the user before the user views a lower priority transcription. The user may determine the priority setting; e.g., by user's preference. The user may be able to change the priority setting anytime; e.g., via a graphical user interface (not shown) of the electronic calendar".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the recording scheduling of Herrin and apply that to the system of Deole combined with Kume. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 35, 52 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 28.
Claims 38, 47, 49
As to Claim 39, Deole combined with Kume and Herrin teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Deole combined with Kume does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Herrin teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the selector is selectable to command the device to autonomously select, to schedule the viewing, an available future timeslot in the electronic calendar and generate, in the electronic calendar, a calendar event corresponding to the viewing for the available future time slot.
In [0040], "In a further embodiment, upon receiving the recording and/or transcription, the electronic calendar of the user, e.g., IBM®, Lotus®, Notes®, etc., may automatically schedule a date and time to playback the recording or transcription for the user. For example, the electronic calendar may make an entry in the electronic calendar in an available time slot during which the user has not make any entry".
Claims 47, 49 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 38.
Claim 44
As to Claim 44, Deole combined with Kume and Herrin teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Deole teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to: responsive to selection of the selector, change the user's expected attendance status for the future meeting itself.
We understand this to broadly correspond to logging a user's decision, in [0182], such logic describes the recording of a user's selection for future training.
Claim 45
As to Claim 45, Deole combined with Kume and Herrin teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Deole combined with Kume does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Herrin teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the video recording comprises audio and video of the future meeting as occurred over a video conference between remotely-located people and as recorded by a video conferencing server.
In [0018], "FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a communications network based; e.g., Internet/Web-based, conferencing system 10 established for reserving and enabling collaborative and/or on-line (audio only or audio/video) teleconferencing and other functionality described herein". In [0029], "In FIG. 1, there is provided a further illustrative embodiment of a teleconference call record/playback infrastructure which may be incorporated in the services functionality of the control server 30 or another server device. For purposes of illustration, control server device or computer 30 includes an associated record playback and transcription control module 51 configured to run software that manages recording, transcribing, and storage of audio conference calls, audio or audio/video collaborative presentations, etc.".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the recording scheduling of Herrin and apply that to the system of Deole combined with Kume. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Claim 46
As to Claim 46, Deole combined with Kume and Herrin teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Deole teaches:
The device of Claim 1, comprising the display.
In [0142], "At 1015, a recommendation for an attendance mode for the user to use to attend the meeting associated with the invitation may be generated. It should be appreciated that an attendance mode may comprise any one of attending in person, attending remotely, attending only a portion, attending by viewing or listening to a recording after the event, not attending at all, or any of the means of participating in an event as described herein". See Fig. 4B for an example GUI, with [0040] outlining possible hardware for the display.
Claims 39-42, 48, 50, 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deole(US 20220327494 A1) in view of Kume(US 20070185907 A1) in further view of Herrin(US 20190327362 A1) in further view of Google Calendar Notifications and Reminders(Google Workspace).
Claim 39, 48, 50
As to Claim 39, Deole combined with Kume and Herrin teaches all the limitations of Claim 38 as discussed above.
Deole combined with Kume and Herrin does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Google Workspace teaches:
The device of Claim 38, wherein the instructions are executable to: generate an email notification indicating the calendar event.
See at 1:04, we are shown options to configure email or pop up notification reminders of a given event.
Deole combined with Kume and Herrin discloses a system for managing a user’s calendar with support for scheduling post hoc recording viewing. Google Workspace teaches the functionality of Google Calendar, a well known electronic calendar management service. Each reference discloses means for managing user interaction with an electronic calendar. Extending the reminder scheduling as recorded in Google Workspace to the system of Deole combined with Kume and Herrin is applicable as they both pertain to electronic calendar 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 reminder management as taught in Google Calendar and apply that to the system of Deole combined with Kume and Herrin. 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 said reminder management would enable users to be apprised of upcoming events in their electronic calendar.
Claims 48 and 50 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 39.
Claim 40, 51
As to Claim 40, Deole combined with Kume and Herrin teaches all the limitations of Claim 39 as discussed above.
Deole combined with Kume and Herrin does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Google Workspace teaches:
The device of Claim 39, wherein the email notification indicates a time, date, and dynamically-determined title for the calendar event.
See at 0:15, it is given that we have a date and time of the event, with the title dynamically formatted with appropriate details from the corresponding calendar invitation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the reminder delivery of Google Calendar and apply that to the system of Deole combined with Kume and Herrin. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 39.
Claims 51 are rejected as disclosing substantially similar limitations as Claim 40.
Claim 41
As to Claim 41, Deole combined with Kume and Herrin teaches all the limitations of Claim 38 as discussed above.
Deole combined with Kume and Herrin does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Google Workspace teaches:
The device of Claim 38, wherein the instructions are executable to: generate a pop-up notification indicating the calendar event.
See at 0:15, it is given that we have a date and time of the event, with the title dynamically formatted with appropriate details from the corresponding calendar invitation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the reminder delivery of Google Calendar and apply that to the system of Deole combined with Kume and Herrin. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 39.
Claim 42
As to Claim 42, Deole combined with Kume and Herrin teaches all the limitations of Claim 41 as discussed above.
Deole combined with Kume and Herrin does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Google Workspace teaches:
The device of Claim 41, wherein the pop-up notification indicates a time, date, and dynamically-determined title for the calendar event.
See at 1:04, it is given that we have a time of the event, with the title dynamically formatted with appropriate details from the corresponding calendar invitation. The date is implicitly provided as the date of pop up notification receipt.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the reminder delivery of Google Calendar and apply that to the system of Deole combined with Kume and Herrin. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 39.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deole(US 20220327494 A1) in view of Kume(US 20070185907 A1) in further view of Herrin(US 20190327362 A1) in further view of StackExchange.
Claim 43
As to Claim 43, Deole combined with Kume and Herrin teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Deole combined with Kume does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Herrin teaches:
The device of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to: responsive to selection of the selector,
Note in [0042], "For example, if the user chooses not to attend an on-line electronic meeting; e.g., by selecting “no” button or option on the notification, the electronic calendar may automatically send a communication signal that requests that user's bot appears and/or attends during the meeting".
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to apply the recording scheduling of Herrin and apply that to the system of Deole combined with Kume. Motivation to do so comes from the same rationale as outlined above with respect to Claim 1.
Deole combined with Kume and Herrin does not expressly disclose the remaining limitations.
However, Stack Exchange discloses:
delete an event from the electronic calendar that corresponds to a scheduled time of the future meeting itself.
As one of ordinary skill in the art would be aware, deleting a declined meeting is a normal functionality of calendar applications such as Microsoft Outlook, whose integration is described in [0027] of Herrin; see attached StackExchange NPL.
Deole combined with Kume and Herrin discloses a system for managing a user’s calendar with support for scheduling post hoc recording viewing. StackExchange discloses additional functionality of Microsoft Outlook. Each reference discloses means for managing user interaction with an electronic calendar, with StackExchange expounding upon the functionality of Outlook, whose usage is described in [0027] of Herrin. Extending the deletion of selected events as recorded in StackExchange to the system of Deole combined with Kume and Herrin is applicable as they both pertain to electronic calendar 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 calendar management of StackExchange and apply that to the system of Deole combined with Kume and Herrin. 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 deleting declined events would maintain the most accurate information as to a user’s obligations.
Conclusion
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