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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on September 2, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system for generating a calendar of events for a user. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a system for generating a calendar of events of interest, and specifically to identifying potential events of interest from one or more transactions, identifying the same or similar events from the same or similar entities, and generating the calendar for the user. The claim recites the steps: analyze the transaction data to extract merchant information and item information; identify an entity corresponding to (i) the merchant from which purchase was made…, retrieve potential event information…; generate an electronic calendar of potential events in response to the retrieving; and upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps: analyze the transaction data to extract merchant information and item information; identify an entity corresponding to (i) the merchant from which purchase was made…, retrieve potential event information…; generate an electronic calendar of potential events in response to the retrieving, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “a transceiver including a network communication interface configured to receive transaction data”, “a database that stores activity and event information”, and “cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface.” The claim also recites that the steps of “analyze the transaction data to extract merchant information and item information; identify an entity corresponding to (i) the merchant from which purchase was made…, retrieve potential event information…; generate an electronic calendar of potential events in response to the retrieving; and upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed”, are performed by one or more processors.
The additional elements “a transceiver including a network communication interface configured to receive transaction data”, “a database that stores activity and event information”, and “cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface” are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, transmitting and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, improvements to the transceiver/the communication interface/the network/the database/the user interface, they just merely used as general means for gathering, transmitting and displaying data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the limitations “analyze the transaction data to extract merchant information and item information; identify an entity corresponding to (i) the merchant from which purchase was made…, retrieve potential event information…; generate an electronic calendar of potential events in response to the retrieving; and upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed” are recited as being performed by the processors. The processors are recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed”, the processors are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of gathering and displaying data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In limitations “analyze the transaction data to extract merchant information and item information; identify an entity corresponding to (i) the merchant from which purchase was made…, retrieve potential event information…; generate an electronic calendar of potential events in response to the retrieving”, the processors are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processors, computer-readable media and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “a transceiver including a network communication interface configured to receive transaction data”, “a database that stores activity and event information”, and “cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface”, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “a transceiver including a network communication interface configured to receive transaction data”, “a database that stores activity and event information”, and “cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering, transmitting and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processors to perform limitations “analyze the transaction data to extract merchant information and item information; identify an entity corresponding to (i) the merchant from which purchase was made…, retrieve potential event information…; generate an electronic calendar of potential events in response to the retrieving; and upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independents claim 8, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method for generating a calendar of events for a user. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a method for generating a calendar of events of interest, and specifically to identifying potential events of interest from one or more transactions, identifying the same or similar events from the same or similar entities, and generating the calendar for the user. The claim recites the steps: analyzing the transaction data to extract merchant information and item information; detecting an entity corresponding to (i) the merchant from which the purchase was made; searching a database of events for potential event information…, generating an electronic calendar of events relating the entity of interest in response to searching, and upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps: analyzing the transaction data to extract merchant information and item information; detecting an entity corresponding to (i) the merchant from which the purchase was made; searching a database of events for potential event information…, generating an electronic calendar of events relating the entity of interest in response to searching, and upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “receiving activity data associated with a purchase made by the user at a merchant” and “cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface”, which are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, transmitting and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, improvements to the transceiver/the communication interface/the network/the database/the user interface, they just merely used as general means for gathering, transmitting and displaying data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Even when viewed in combination, the recited limitations do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “receiving activity data associated with a purchase made by the user at a merchant” and “cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface”, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “receiving activity data associated with a purchase made by the user at a merchant” and “cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering, transmitting and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independents claim 15, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system for generating a calendar of events for a user. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a system for generating a calendar of events of interest, and specifically to identifying potential events of interest from one or more transactions, identifying the same or similar events from the same or similar entities, and generating the calendar for the user. The claim recites the steps: update the database with first and second event information, receive activity data associated with a user, enroll the user in automated calendaring, retrieve the stored event information, generating a customized calendar for the user, and upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps: enroll the user in automated calendaring, retrieve the stored event information, and generating a customized calendar for the user, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “a communication interface configured to exchange data over a network”, “a database that stores event formation”, “receive first event information via the communication interface”, “receive the traction data associated with the user”, “perform a craping operation with respect to an external source to obtain second event information”, “cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface.” The claim also recites that the steps of “receive first event formation, perform a scraping operation, update the database with first and second event information, receive transaction data associated with a user, enroll the user in automated calendaring, retrieve the stored event information, generating a customized calendar for the user, and upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the customize calendar to be displayed to the user”, are performed by one or more processors.
The additional elements “a communication interface configured to exchange data over a network”, “a database that stores event formation”, “receive first event information via the communication interface”, “receive the traction data associated with the user”, “perform a craping operation with respect to an external source to obtain second event information”, “cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface” are mere data gathering, transmitting, and receiving recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, transmitting and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, improvements to the communication interface/the network/the database/the user interface, they just merely used as general means for gathering, transmitting and displaying data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Further, the limitations “receive first event formation, perform a scraping operation, update the database with first and second event information, receive transaction data associated with a user, enroll the user in automated calendaring, retrieve the stored event information, generating a customized calendar for the user, and upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the customize calendar to be displayed to the user” are recited as being performed by the processors. The processors are recited at a high level of generality. In the limitations “receive first event formation, perform a scraping operation, and upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the customize calendar to be displayed to the user”, the processors are recited at a high level of generality and are used to perform the function of gathering, transmitting and displaying data. In the limitations “update the database with first and second event information, receive activity data associated with a user, enroll the user in automated calendaring, retrieve the stored event information, and generating a customized calendar for the user”, the processors are recited at a high level of generality and are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the processors, computer-readable media and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “a communication interface configured to exchange data over a network”, “a database that stores event formation”, “receive first event information via the communication interface”, “receive the traction data associated with the user”, “perform a craping operation with respect to an external source to obtain second event information”, “cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface”, were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of a communication interface configured to exchange data over a network”, “a database that stores event formation”, “receive first event information via the communication interface”, “receive the traction data associated with the user”, “perform a craping operation with respect to an external source to obtain second event information”, “cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface”, and “perform a craping operation” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to gathering, transmitting and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the processors to perform limitations “receive first event formation, perform a scraping operation, update the database with first and second event information, receive activity data associated with a user, enroll the user in automated calendaring, retrieve the stored event information, generating a customized calendar for the user, and upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the customize calendar to be displayed to the user”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea. For example, Claim 2 recites cause the transceiver to transmit a message to the user (see claim 1 for additional elements of merely used as general means for transmitting information); Claim 3 recites wherein the message notifies the user of the entity, that simply refines the abstract idea; Claim 4 recites wherein the message notifies the user of the entity, that simply refines the abstract idea; Claim 5 recites: conduct a query of the data…, determining that there is no potential event information, and scaping an external electronic source, that are additional elements of merely gathering data (see claim 1 above); Claim 6 recites wherein the generated calendar includes the potential event information, that is simply the abstract idea; Claim 7 recites cause the transceiver to transmit a request message…, receiving a reply message…, and modifying the user’s digital calendar…, that are additional elements of merely gathering, transmitting, and receiving data (see claim 1 above); Claims 9-10 recite wherein the entity of interest is a merchant…, that simply refines an abstract idea; Claims 11-13 recite receiving a request from the user…, transmitting a notification messages…, receiving an op-out reply…, and terminating automatic calendaring in response to the receiving, that are additional elements of merely transmitting and receiving data (see claim 8 above); Claim 14 recites determining no potential event information.., scaping a plurality of external source in including a website…, that are additional element of merely gathering data (see claim 8 above); Claims 16-17 recite receiving an enrollment request.., wherein the scraping is permed in response to determining…, that are additional elements of merely receiving and gathering data (see claim 15 above); Claims 18-20 recite analyzing the activity data…, the analyzing further identifies a subset of the store vent information…, wherein the subset is identified based on at least one of a location…, that simply refine an abstract idea. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 2023/0267423) in view of Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee, US 2008/0162251).
Regarding to claim 1, Wagner discloses an automated calendaring system, comprising:
a transceiver including a network communication interface and configured to receive data (figure 1 and para [0040], ECP server 102, user computing device 104, event manager computing device 106, and third party server 120 are in communication over a network 108; para [0007], The at least one processor is programmed to receive, from a user application executing on a user computing device, a subscription request identifying an event manager, and in response to the subscription request, create a subscription record in a database. The subscription record associates a user ID of the user with an event manager ID of the event manager. The at least one processor is also programmed to receive, from a manager application executing on an event manager computing device, calendar event information associated with a plurality of events. The calendar event information includes a scheduled date/time for each of the events; para [0026], Supplemental information and/or content provided with calendar event information may include, for example, hyperlinks to online retailer websites to enable a user to quickly purchase items suitable for specific events. The hyperlink may be presented to the user in the feed along with the calendar event information. The calendar event feed may also include posts from event managers about newly scheduled events, changes in scheduled events, or canceled events; para [0097], The hyperlinks may be used to link to retail websites for providing different services and/or products. For example, a book club event may have a link to a website to purchase the next book to read. In another example, the hyperlink may link to a gallery of pictures that other users took at the last event. In a further example, a sports league event may have hyperlinks to the needed gear and/or equipment. This may include links to one or more e-commerce sites that have the different needed pieces of gear and/or equipment. These links may allow the user to build a shopping list);
a database that stores event data associated with a plurality of merchants and calendar data associated with the user, the event data comprising details of scheduled events obtained from at least one of: (i) subscribing merchants providing event feeds, and (ii) automated scraping operation of publicly available sources (figure 1 and para [0040], ECP server 102 is also in communication with a database 110 and may communicate with database 110 through a database server 112; para [0007], The at least one processor is further programmed to create, in the database, a plurality of event records linked to the event manager ID. Each event record of the plurality of event records includes the calendar event information for a corresponding event of the plurality of events; para [0048], For example, an event manager that is a merchant may choose to send a push for a new event corresponding to a “flash” sale, an event manager that is a coach may choose to send a push for a last-minute time change for a game, any event manager may choose to send a push to note the cancellation of a previously calendared event, etc.; para [0028], An event manager may be an individual, a group of individuals, an organization, and/or any other entity that plans, organizes and/or hosts one or more scheduled events. An event manager may include, for example, a school, a teacher, a business, a club, a vendor of goods, a vendor of services, a sports team, a coach, a professional service provider, and the like; para [0026], The system interfaces with a client-side application that enables a user to follow accounts of event managers and to view calendar event information input by event manager accounts that the user is following on a calendar event feed. For example, the calendar event feed is populated with and displays a sequence of calendar event information from event manager accounts that a user is following. For example, the calendar event feed may include information related to the date, time, and/or location of a scheduled event, a description of the scheduled event (e.g., topic, attire, directions, a list of participants, a list of organizers), and/or any other supplemental information and/or content associated with a scheduled event); and
one or more processors (figure 1 and para [0040], ECP system 100 includes an ECP server computing device 102) configured to:
analyze the transaction data to extract merchant information and item information (para [0050], in response to the user functionality (e.g., the event feed) of ECP application 114 being activated or refreshed, ECP application 114 transmits a “populate” request, including information representative of the corresponding UserID 620, to ECP server 102. ECP server 102 queries Subscription Table 602 for all subscription records that include the corresponding UserID 620, and the query returns all EventMgrIDs 630 followed by the user; para [0094], The hyperlink may be selected by the user and causes ECP application 114 to display, or causes another application on the user computing device 104 to display, a web page of the Ticket Service event manager that includes the ticket information. In another example, event post 520, which is created by a Book Club event manager, includes a hyperlink to a third party online retailer web page that allows the user to purchase a book to read before the scheduled Book Club event.);
identify, based on the extracted merchant information, an entity corresponding to (i) the merchant from which the purchase was made or (ii) a company associated with an item included in the purchase (para [0050], In turn, ECP server 102 queries the respective Event Table 640 linked to each returned EventMgrID 630, and the query returns all calendar events eligible to appear in the user's feed. ECP server 102 may further apply user and event manager preferences, as discussed further below, to filter the returned calendar events provided to ECP application 114 for display in the user's feed; para [0026], The system interfaces with a client-side application that enables a user to follow accounts of event managers and to view calendar event information input by event manager accounts that the user is following on a calendar event feed. For example, the calendar event feed is populated with and displays a sequence of calendar event information from event manager accounts that a user is following. For example, the calendar event feed may include information related to the date, time, and/or location of a scheduled event, a description of the scheduled event (e.g., topic, attire, directions, a list of participants, a list of organizers), and/or any other supplemental information and/or content associated with a scheduled event);
retrieve, from the database, potential event information based on the identifying (para [0067], Users and event managers may update the user and event manager data stored in data structure 600 at any time through ECP application 114. For example, event managers may input updated calendar event information. Updated calendar event information may include information associated with newly scheduled events, changes to scheduled events, and/or canceled events of the event manager);
generate an electronic calendar of potential events in response to the retrieving (para [0088], Calendar event feed 508 is populated with calendar event information previously input by event manager accounts that the user is following. As shown in FIG. 5, the calendar event information is displayed on calendar event feed 508 as an ordered list, or sequence, of event posts 510, 512, 514, 516, 518, 520. Event posts 510-520 are created from calendar event data previously input by one or more event managers, e.g. using their own instances of ECP application 114); and
upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface (para [0030], a user that is registered through the ECP application is able to subscribe to or follow event managers that are also registered through the ECP application. A registered event manager may input calendar event information (e.g., date, time, and/or location information) into the ECP application and the calendar event information may be stored by the ECP server. In response to a user “following” or subscribing to an event manager, the calendar event information input by the event manager may be provided or otherwise become available to the user via the ECP application. For example, the ECP server may generate a calendar event feed that is displayed on a user's device through the ECP application. The calendar event feed may be populated with calendar event information of event managers that the user is following. The calendar event feed may be continuously updated by the ECP server as event managers input calendar event information related to, for example, changes in and/or newly scheduled events).
Wagner does not disclose, however, Lee discloses transaction data associated with a purchase made by a user at a merchant, the transaction data inducing at least one of a merchant identifier (para [0034], The business 210 may comprise any individual or entity selling (or offering for sale) any goods or services. The illustrated system, therefore, allows a customer 200 to grant specified businesses access to the customer's 200 electronic calendar 100 (via an exposed API 170) to schedule events 140 relating to goods or services purchased (or potentially purchased) from said business 210; para [0035], Similarly, after being granted access, an airline such as ACME AIRLINES may directly insert a flight itinerary, perhaps for a flight purchased online by the customer 200, into the electronic calendar 100. Such calendar insertion may comprise a replacement of, or supplement to, current methods airlines utilize to transmit flight itinerary information (postal mail, email, etc.). If the customer 200 grants calendar access to an online auction business such as EBAY, deadlines for the customer 200 to pay for purchased items (or to ship sold items) may directly docketed with the electronic calendar 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wagner’s to incorporate the features taught by Lee above, for the purpose of generating the electronic calendar events including the transaction data associated with a purchase made by the user. Since Wagner discloses generating a calendar of events for the user, Lee discloses generating a calendar of events for the user relating to goods or services purchased, as described above, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of Wagner and Lee would have yield predictable results in generating an electronic calendar of events for the user.
Regarding to claim 2, Wagner discloses the automated calendaring system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
cause the transceiver to transmit a message to the user over the network confirming enrollment with respect to the entity (para [0043], ECP server 102 may receive a user registration request from user computing device 104. In response to the user registration request, the ECP server 102 may register the user and create a user account on an ECP platform).
Regarding to claim 3, Wagner discloses the automated calendaring system of claim 2, wherein the message notifies the user of the entity, and requests that the user indicate whether to enroll in automatic calendaring with respect to the entity (para [0048], In some embodiments, data structure 600 enables rapid refresh of the calendar feed of a particular user, in response to a request from ECP application 114 to populate the user feed, and also for rapid notifications of event updates via the user feed, or via another channel, to users following the corresponding event manager in response to a “push” request input to ECP application 114 by an event manager for a particular event update).
Regarding to claim 4, Wagner discloses the automated calendaring system of claim 2, wherein the message notifies the user of the entity and an intent to automatically enroll the user in automatic calendaring with respect to the entity, and provides an option for the user to disenroll from automatic calendaring with respect to the entity (para [0047], ECP server 102 may also generate recommendations of event manager accounts that the user may be interested in following based on user data and event manager data stored in database 110 and/or on other event manager accounts the user follows. ECP server 102 may cause these recommendations to be displayed to the user with a prompt that allows the user to select to either follow a recommended account or to ignore the recommendation. When a user selects to follow an event manager account, ECP computing device 102 may automatically subscribe the user to the event manager account and store this information in database 110).
Regarding to claim 5, Wagner discloses the automated calendaring system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
conduct a query of the data to identify the potential event information (para [0050], ECP server 102 queries the respective Event Table 640 linked to each returned EventMgrID 630, and the query returns all calendar events eligible to appear in the user's feed);
determine, in response to the database query, that there is no potential event information stored in the database (para [0068], ECP application 114 may be in communication with other applications 116 of user computing device 104 and event manager computing device 106. ECP application 114 may import user and event manager data from other applications 116. For example, event managers may allow ECP application 114 to retrieve data from a conventional calendar application 116 on event manager computing device 106 to define new calendar events for storage in data structure 600); and
scraping an external electronic source associated with the entity for the potential event information (para [0068], ECP application 114 may also export data to other applications 116. For example, ECP application 114 on user computing device 104 may export calendar event information received in the user feed in ECP application 114 to calendar application 116 to seamlessly integrate and sync ECP application 114 with conventional digital calendars).
Regarding to claim 6, Wagner discloses the automated calendaring system of claim 1, wherein the generated calendar includes the potential event information, and is accessible by the user (para [0047], Users may browse for event manager accounts using ECP application 114 and access profile pages (discussed further below) associated with the event manager accounts. ECP server 102 may cause a prompt to be displayed on an event manager profile page accessed by a user that allows the user to select to follow the event manager account).
Regarding to claim 7, Wagner discloses the automated calendaring system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
cause the transceiver the transmit a request message to the user requesting modification permission from the user to modify an existing digital calendar associated with the user (para [0048], data structure 600 enables rapid refresh of the calendar feed of a particular user, in response to a request from ECP application 114 to populate the user feed, and also for rapid notifications of event updates via the user feed, or via another channel, to users following the corresponding event manager in response to a “push” request input to ECP application 114 by an event manager for a particular event update); and
receiving, by the transceiver, a reply message granting the requested permission (para [0088], For example, when the user activates or refreshes ECP application 114, ECP application transmits a “populate” request to ECP server 102 to retrieve the ordered sequence of events from ECP server 102); and
modifying the user’s digital calendar with the potential event information in response to receiving the requested permission (para [0088], For example, when the user activates or refreshes ECP application 114, ECP application transmits a “populate” request to ECP server 102 to retrieve the ordered sequence of events from ECP server 102. ECP application 114 may also dynamically update or refresh calendar event feed 508, e.g., may periodically and automatically transmit “populate” requests to ECP server 102).
Regarding to claim 8, Wagner discloses a method for automatically informing a user of events of interest, comprising:
receiving activity data associated with the user (para [0043], The user data may also include scheduled user tasks (e.g., getting groceries, car maintenance, home maintenance, picking up dry cleaning, etc.), scheduled user activities (e.g., social activities, like parties and weddings, and physical activities, like workout classes etc.), scheduled user appointments (e.g., recurring appointments like yearly physicals and bimonthly haircuts, etc.), and any other information associated with the user that may be useful to ECP server 102);
analyzing the transaction data to extract merchant information and item information (para [0050], in response to the user functionality (e.g., the event feed) of ECP application 114 being activated or refreshed, ECP application 114 transmits a “populate” request, including information representative of the corresponding UserID 620, to ECP server 102. ECP server 102 queries Subscription Table 602 for all subscription records that include the corresponding UserID 620, and the query returns all EventMgrIDs 630 followed by the user);
detecting, based on the analysis and the extracted merchant information, an entity corresponding to (i) the merchant from which the purchase was made or (ii) a company associated with an item include in the purchase (para [0057], ECP application 114 on user computing device 104 may provide client-side filtering capabilities. For example, users (e.g., players or parents of players) that follow a coach, and are in the process of planning other family events that need to avoid conflicts with game times, may apply a filter at ECP application 114 so that the user's feed shows only calendar events that have a “game” label, whereas events having a “practice” label are excluded or moved to the bottom of the feed; para [0026], The system interfaces with a client-side application that enables a user to follow accounts of event managers and to view calendar event information input by event manager accounts that the user is following on a calendar event feed. For example, the calendar event feed is populated with and displays a sequence of calendar event information from event manager accounts that a user is following. For example, the calendar event feed may include information related to the date, time, and/or location of a scheduled event, a description of the scheduled event (e.g., topic, attire, directions, a list of participants, a list of organizers), and/or any other supplemental information and/or content associated with a scheduled event);
searching a database of events for potential event information related to the entity of interest (para [0050], In turn, ECP server 102 queries the respective Event Table 640 linked to each returned EventMgrID 630, and the query returns all calendar events eligible to appear in the user's feed. ECP server 102 may further apply user and event manager preferences, as discussed further below, to filter the returned calendar events provided to ECP application 114 for display in the user's feed);
generating an electronic calendar of events relating to the entity of interest in response to the searching retrieving (para [0088], Calendar event feed 508 is populated with calendar event information previously input by event manager accounts that the user is following. As shown in FIG. 5, the calendar event information is displayed on calendar event feed 508 as an ordered list, or sequence, of event posts 510, 512, 514, 516, 518, 520. Event posts 510-520 are created from calendar event data previously input by one or more event managers, e.g. using their own instances of ECP application 114); and
causing, in response to receiving authorization from the user, the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface (para [0030], a user that is registered through the ECP application is able to subscribe to or follow event managers that are also registered through the ECP application. A registered event manager may input calendar event information (e.g., date, time, and/or location information) into the ECP application and the calendar event information may be stored by the ECP server. In response to a user “following” or subscribing to an event manager, the calendar event information input by the event manager may be provided or otherwise become available to the user via the ECP application. For example, the ECP server may generate a calendar event feed that is displayed on a user's device through the ECP application. The calendar event feed may be populated with calendar event information of event managers that the user is following. The calendar event feed may be continuously updated by the ECP server as event managers input calendar event information related to, for example, changes in and/or newly scheduled events).
Wagner does not disclose, however, Lee discloses a purchase made by the user at a merchant, the transaction data including at least one of a merchant identifier (para [0034], The business 210 may comprise any individual or entity selling (or offering for sale) any goods or services. The illustrated system, therefore, allows a customer 200 to grant specified businesses access to the customer's 200 electronic calendar 100 (via an exposed API 170) to schedule events 140 relating to goods or services purchased (or potentially purchased) from said business 210; para [0035], Similarly, after being granted access, an airline such as ACME AIRLINES may directly insert a flight itinerary, perhaps for a flight purchased online by the customer 200, into the electronic calendar 100. Such calendar insertion may comprise a replacement of, or supplement to, current methods airlines utilize to transmit flight itinerary information (postal mail, email, etc.). If the customer 200 grants calendar access to an online auction business such as EBAY, deadlines for the customer 200 to pay for purchased items (or to ship sold items) may directly docketed with the electronic calendar 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wagner’s to incorporate the features taught by Lee above, for the purpose of generating the electronic calendar events including the transaction data associated with a purchase made by the user. Since Wagner discloses generating a calendar of events for the user, Lee discloses generating a calendar of events for the user relating to goods or services purchased, as described above, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of Wagner and Lee would have yield predictable results in generating an electronic calendar of events for the user.
Regarding to claim 9, Wagner discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the entity of interest is a merchant (para [0048], For example, an event manager that is a merchant may choose to send a push for a new event corresponding to a “flash” sale, an event manager that is a coach may choose to send a push for a last-minute time change for a game, any event manager may choose to send a push to note the cancellation of a previously calendared event, etc.).
Regarding to claim 10, Wagner discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the activity data is transaction data (para [0094], In another example, event post 520, which is created by a Book Club event manager, includes a hyperlink to a third party online retailer web page that allows the user to purchase a book to read before the scheduled Book Club event).
Regarding to claim 11, Wagner discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: receiving a request from the user to enroll in automatic calendaring, the request including an identification of the entity of interest (para [0044], ECP server 102 may also receive an event manager registration request from event manager computing device 106. In response to the event manager registration request, the ECP computing device 102 may register the event manager and create an event manager account on the ECP platform).
Regarding to claim 12, Wagner discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising: transmitting a notification message to the user informing the user of enrollment in automatic calendaring with respect to the entity of interest (para [0048], data structure 600 enables rapid refresh of the calendar feed of a particular user, in response to a request from ECP application 114 to populate the user feed, and also for rapid notifications of event updates via the user feed, or via another channel, to users following the corresponding event manager in response to a “push” request input to ECP application 114 by an event manager for a particular event update).
Regarding to claim 13, Wagner discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising: receiving an opt-out reply from the user in response to the transmitting; and terminating automatic calendaring in response to the receiving (para [0047], ECP server 102 may cause these recommendations to be displayed to the user with a prompt that allows the user to select to either follow a recommended account or to ignore the recommendation).
Regarding to claim 14, Wagner discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
determining no potential event information related to the entity of interest is available in the database (para [0050], ECP server 102 queries the respective Event Table 640 linked to each returned EventMgrID 630, and the query returns all calendar events eligible to appear in the user's feed);
scraping a plurality of external sources for the potential event information (para [0068], ECP application 114 may also export data to other applications 116. For example, ECP application 114 on user computing device 104 may export calendar event information received in the user feed in ECP application 114 to calendar application 116 to seamlessly integrate and sync ECP application 114 with conventional digital calendars);
wherein the plurality of external sources include a website associated with the entity of interest, and an external database associated with the entity of interest (para [0073], For example, the user may access a third party server 120 by clicking a hyperlink that is included with the calendar event information input by an event manager (e.g., stored in Labels field 648) and displayed to the user in conjunction with the calendar event on the user's feed).
Regarding to claim 15, Wagner discloses an automated calendaring system, comprising:
a communication interface configured to exchange data over a network and configure to receive data (figure 1 and para [0040], ECP server 102, user computing device 104, event manager computing device 106, and third party server 120 are in communication over a network 108);
a database that stores event data associated with a plurality of merchants and calendar data associated with the user, the event data comprising details of scheduled events obtained from at least one of: (i) subscribing merchants providing event feeds, and (ii) automated scraping operation of publicly available sources (figure 1 and para [0040], ECP server 102 is also in communication with a database 110 and may communicate with database 110 through a database server 112; para [0007], The at least one processor is further programmed to create, in the database, a plurality of event records linked to the event manager ID. Each event record of the plurality of event records includes the calendar event information for a corresponding event of the plurality of events; para [0048], For example, an event manager that is a merchant may choose to send a push for a new event corresponding to a “flash” sale, an event manager that is a coach may choose to send a push for a last-minute time change for a game, any event manager may choose to send a push to note the cancellation of a previously calendared event, etc.; para [0028], An event manager may be an individual, a group of individuals, an organization, and/or any other entity that plans, organizes and/or hosts one or more scheduled events. An event manager may include, for example, a school, a teacher, a business, a club, a vendor of goods, a vendor of services, a sports team, a coach, a professional service provider, and the like; para [0026], The system interfaces with a client-side application that enables a user to follow accounts of event managers and to view calendar event information input by event manager accounts that the user is following on a calendar event feed. For example, the calendar event feed is populated with and displays a sequence of calendar event information from event manager accounts that a user is following. For example, the calendar event feed may include information related to the date, time, and/or location of a scheduled event, a description of the scheduled event (e.g., topic, attire, directions, a list of participants, a list of organizers), and/or any other supplemental information and/or content associated with a scheduled event); and
one or more processors (figure 1 and para [0040], ECP system 100 includes an ECP server computing device 102) configured to:
receive first event information from an entity via the communication interface (para [0069], User computing device 104 and event manager computing device 106 also include a user interface 118. User interface 118 may be used, for example, to input information into ECP application 114 and/or to display content from ECP application 114);
perform a scraping operation with respect to an external source to obtain second event information (para [0068], ECP application 114 may also export data to other applications 116. For example, ECP application 114 on user computing device 104 may export calendar event information received in the user feed in ECP application 114 to calendar application 116 to seamlessly integrate and sync ECP application 114 with conventional digital calendars).
update the database with the first event information and the second event information (para [0067], Users and event managers may update the user and event manager data stored in data structure 600 at any time through ECP application 114. For example, event managers may input updated calendar event information. Updated calendar event information may include information associated with newly scheduled events, changes to scheduled events, and/or canceled events of the event manager);
receive transaction data associated with the user (para [0043], The user data may also include scheduled user tasks (e.g., getting groceries, car maintenance, home maintenance, picking up dry cleaning, etc.), scheduled user activities (e.g., social activities, like parties and weddings, and physical activities, like workout classes etc.), scheduled user appointments (e.g., recurring appointments like yearly physicals and bimonthly haircuts, etc.), and any other information associated with the user that may be useful to ECP server 102);
enroll the user in automated calendaring with respect to the entity (para [0043], ECP server 102 may receive a user registration request from user computing device 104. In response to the user registration request, the ECP server 102 may register the user and create a user account on an ECP platform);
retrieve the stored event information associated with the entity (para [0068], ECP application 114 may be in communication with other applications 116 of user computing device 104 and event manager computing device 106. ECP application 114 may import user and event manager data from other applications 116. For example, event managers may allow ECP application 114 to retrieve data from a conventional calendar application 116 on event manager computing device 106 to define new calendar events for storage in data structure 600);
generating a customized calendar for the user that includes the event information (para 0116], FIGS. 9A and 9B illustrate screenshots 900 and 910 of an exemplary calendar 902 for the electronic calendar platform computer system 100 (shown in FIG. 1). In the exemplary embodiment, the calendar 902 includes a plurality of dates 904. The calendar also includes a plurality of calendar types 906, such as, but not limited to, work, medical, sports, family, and any other that the user desires. Each event is associated with a calendar type 906. The user may set-up the different calendar types to provide different types of information. Furthermore, the user may customize the calendar types to be associated with different colors, so that the user may easily determine the calendar type for different events. For example, blue may be associated with work, and any events highlighted with a blue highlight 912 would be work events, such as work meetings. In another example, green may be associated with medical, and any events highlighted with a green highlight 912 would be medical events, such as doctor appointments. In a further example, red may be associated with a child's events, such as baseball, soccer, and/or chess club); and
upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the customized calendar to be displayed to the user in a user interface (para [0030], a user that is registered through the ECP application is able to subscribe to or follow event managers that are also registered through the ECP application. A registered event manager may input calendar event information (e.g., date, time, and/or location information) into the ECP application and the calendar event information may be stored by the ECP server. In response to a user “following” or subscribing to an event manager, the calendar event information input by the event manager may be provided or otherwise become available to the user via the ECP application. For example, the ECP server may generate a calendar event feed that is displayed on a user's device through the ECP application. The calendar event feed may be populated with calendar event information of event managers that the user is following. The calendar event feed may be continuously updated by the ECP server as event managers input calendar event information related to, for example, changes in and/or newly scheduled events).
Wagner does not disclose, however, Lee discloses transaction data associated with a purchase made by a user at a merchant, the transaction data inducing at least one of a merchant identifier (para [0034], The business 210 may comprise any individual or entity selling (or offering for sale) any goods or services. The illustrated system, therefore, allows a customer 200 to grant specified businesses access to the customer's 200 electronic calendar 100 (via an exposed API 170) to schedule events 140 relating to goods or services purchased (or potentially purchased) from said business 210; para [0035], Similarly, after being granted access, an airline such as ACME AIRLINES may directly insert a flight itinerary, perhaps for a flight purchased online by the customer 200, into the electronic calendar 100. Such calendar insertion may comprise a replacement of, or supplement to, current methods airlines utilize to transmit flight itinerary information (postal mail, email, etc.). If the customer 200 grants calendar access to an online auction business such as EBAY, deadlines for the customer 200 to pay for purchased items (or to ship sold items) may directly docketed with the electronic calendar 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Wagner’s to incorporate the features taught by Lee above, for the purpose of generating the electronic calendar events including the transaction data associated with a purchase made by the user. Since Wagner discloses generating a calendar of events for the user, Lee discloses generating a calendar of events for the user relating to goods or services purchased, as described above, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of Wagner and Lee would have yield predictable results in generating an electronic calendar of events for the user.
Regarding to claim 16, Wagner discloses the automated calendaring system of claim 15, further comprising receiving an enrollment request from the user,
wherein the enrolling the user in automated calendaring occurs in response to the receiving of the enrollment request (para [0043], ECP server 102 may assign a unique UserID 620 to each registered user, and may store the user data in a User Table 622 indexed by the UserID field. User Table 622 may store, for example, device/contact information 624 associated with the user computing device 104 (e.g., a device identifier, phone number, email address, or other information suitable for establishing one or more communication channels with the user), global preferences 626, and/or any other suitable user data).
Regarding to claim 17, Wagner discloses the automated calendaring system of claim 15, wherein the scraping is performed in response to determining that the data base does not include the event information (para [0068], ECP application 114 may also export data to other applications 116. For example, ECP application 114 on user computing device 104 may export calendar event information received in the user feed in ECP application 114 to calendar application 116 to seamlessly integrate and sync ECP application 114 with conventional digital calendars)
Regarding to claim 18, Wagner discloses the automated calendaring system of claim 15, further comprising analyzing the activity data to identify the entity (para [0056], ECP server 102 may store that information in the Event Manager-Specific Preferences field 608 of the subscription record for the respective user-event manager pair in Subscription Table 602, which facilitates rapid identification and application of the user's preferences when the user feed is populated. This enables each user to define individual feed timing and notification preferences for events posted by the same event manager that have different labels. For example, users (e.g., players or parents of players) that follow a coach may store a preference in field 608 that causes calendar events that have a “game” label to generate a push notification at a selected number of hours before game time (in addition to appearing in the user's feed), whereas events having a “practice” label only appear in the user's feed).
Regarding to claim 19, Wagner discloses the automated calendaring system of claim 18, wherein the analyzing further identifies a subset of the stored event information considered relevant to the user (para [0056], an event manager may classify or categorize a specific calendar event by inputting one or more labels via ECP application 114 for association with the calendar event. For example, ECP server 102 may store one or more event-specific labels in a Labels field 648 of the event record in the event manager's Event Table 640. The label(s) assigned to the calendar event may indicate a type of the event and/or a relative urgency of the information).
Regarding to claim 20, Wagner discloses the automated calendaring system of claim 19, wherein the subset is identified based on at least one of a location or an item included in the activity data (para [0072], ECP application 114 may also monitor location data from a location module, such as a global positioning satellite (GPS) module, that is installed on user computing device 104, and if enabled by the user's preferences, transmit the location data to ECP server 102, e.g., in the populate request. ECP server 102 may compare the location data to location-based labels (e.g., stored in Labels field 648) and insert events into the user's feed and/or send pushes to user computing device 104 based on the comparison).
Response to Arguments/Amendment
7. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
I. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (see more details above).
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the independent claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite any method of organizing human activity, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claims recite a system and method for generating a calendar of events of interest, and specifically to identifying potential events of interest from one or more transactions, identifying the same or similar events from the same or similar entities, and generating the calendar for the user. The Specification, para [0001[ described “Embodiments of the present disclosure are related to automatically generating a calendar of events of interest, and specifically to identifying potential events of interest from one or more transactions, identifying the same or similar events from the same or similar entities, and generating the calendar for the user”, thus under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the present claims are most like those of Example 37, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that: in the Example 37, claim 1 recited receiving a user selection, determining the amount of use of each icon over a period of time and “automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closes to the start icon based on the determined amount of use”, which found by the Board that the claim integrated the mental process into a practical application because it provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. In contrast, the present claims recite the additional elements “upon receiving authorization from the user, cause the calendar of potential events to be displayed to the user in a user interface” are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, improvements to the user interface, they just merely used as general means for gathering and displaying data. It is similar to other concepts that have been identified by the courts Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that the claimed invention also improves the functioning of the computer by “automatically identifying potential events of interest to a particular user” and by providing “a mechanism to notifying the user of those events, such as through an automatically generated calendar” and these results are achieved through scraping mechanism to automatically acquire event of interest from different merchants, or other pubic source”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the claimed features are mere data gathering and outputting (a mechanism to notifying, scraping mechanism to automatically acquire event) recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvements to the technology, improvements to the functioning of the computer, improvements to the user interface, they just merely used as general means for gathering and displaying data. Moreover, while the Applicant stated that “the claimed invention also improves the functioning of the computer,” there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of generating a calendar of events of interest, rather than to any technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, even when considering the elements in combination, the claims as a whole does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 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. The new ground of 103 rejection described above.
Conclusion
8. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
10. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Penzo et al. (US 2020/0090130) disclose a system and method for custom calendaring.
Sikora et al. (US 2011/0252351) disclose methods and systems for a calendar management system.
Ronen et al. (US 2011/0029350) disclose a method of calendaring events including determining aggregated information of a plurality of events over a time period and correlative with individual event information stored in a calendar.
Vakil et al. (US 2007/0260989) disclose a confluence calendar system and method having a user platform with a user calendar having a number of events of importance to the user.
Barnett et al. (US 6,369,840) disclose a computer-implemented method and system for generating and displaying a calendar containing user-selected events from user-selected categories.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 January 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights