DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This final Office action is responsive to Applicant's amendment filed 10/15/25. Claims 1, 7, 13, 18, 27 and 28 have been amended. Claims 2-6, 8, 12, 14-17, and 19-21 have been canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 1, 7, 9-11, 13, 18 and 22-28 have been considered as follows.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is not withdrawn in response to Applicant's claim amendments. Examiner submits that while a system including at least a terminal device is provided, there is no positive recitation of how the system transforms or changes the nature of the claim into something patent-eligible.
The previously pending rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn in response to Applicant's claim amendments.
The previously pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 is withdrawn in response to Applicant's claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments drawn to the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees. In particular, Applicant’s argue that the claims are directed to a technological process that integrates a terminal device with a map-application SDK and historical data and dynamically generates an alarm time. As further described in the rejection below, Examiner submits that these elements of the terminal device and integrating a SDK of a map applications and obtaining information from this application are interpreted as additional elements and are claimed at a high level of generality, when considered alone and in combination. These additional elements of the instant claims are claimed at a nominal level, in which it is not explicitly claimed as to how they are used in any novel or significant ways to accomplish the method steps. As per the MPEP (MPEP 2106.05(a)), it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Therefore, as the claim limitations do not include additional elements that are claimed beyond the judicial exception that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and/or are amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, the instant claims are not patent eligible.
Finally, Examiner also submits that an abstract idea is not made less abstract by being new and nonobvious. The inquiries under 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 102/103 are distinct. Cf. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1303 (2012) (rejecting the suggestion that Sections 102, 103, and 112 might perform the appropriate screening function and noting that in Mayo such an approach “would make the Taw of nature’ exception ... a dead letter”); see also Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Reyna, J., dissenting) (“The inventiveness inquiry of § 101 should . . . not be confused with the separate novelty inquiry of § 102 or the obviousness inquiry of § 103.”). To summarize, newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions (i.e., recited abstract ideas) are still exceptions. The Federal Circuit has also applied this principle, for example, when holding a concept of using advertising as an exchange or currency to be an abstract idea, despite the patentee’s arguments that the concept was "new". Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea") (emphasis in original). In this regard, the instant claims are not patent eligible.
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, 7, 9-11, 13, 18 and 22-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea without significantly more and are merely requiring generic computer implementation, which fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. In view of the two-step test regarding determining subject matter eligibility, Examiner submits that the independent claim(s) 1, 18, and 28 recite(s) a method, a terminal device, and a computer-readable storage medium for alarm setting. Therefore, the claims as a whole are considered as being in a statutory category under Step 1 of the test.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1, Examiner submits that the claims as a whole are directed to a judicially recognized exception that is an abstract idea. The claimed invention is drawn to an abstract idea of alarm setting, by specifically including “displaying, by the terminal device, a first card when the terminal device receives first travel information, wherein the first card comprises the first travel information and alarm setting information, the alarm setting information comprises a first control and a first time, and the first time is a suggested alarm time”; “receiving a first operation for the first control”; “displaying, by the terminal device, a first interface in response to the first operation, wherein the first interface is an alarm setting interface on which the first time has been selected, and the first interface comprises a second control”; “setting, by the terminal device, an alarm corresponding to the first time when a second operation for the second control is received…”; “…calculating, by the terminal device, a difference between the first travel start time and a first duration…”; “obtaining, by the terminal device, an alarm list…”; “displaying, by the terminal device, the first card…”; “wherein the calculating, by the terminal device, a difference between the first travel start time and a first duration to obtain the first time comprises: integrating, by the terminal device, a software development kit (SDK) of a map application; obtaining, by the terminal device, the second duration…; calculating, by the terminal device, the sum of the second duration, the third duration, and the fourth duration…; and calculating, by the terminal device, the difference between the first travel start time and the first duration to obtain the first time…”; and “…calculating, by the terminal device, the sum of the second duration, the third duration, and the fourth duration to obtain the first duration comprises: obtaining, by the terminal device, a plurality of fifth durations…; clustering, by the terminal device, the plurality of fifth durations to obtain a plurality of first curves; fitting, by the terminal device, the plurality of first curves into a second curve; …determining, by the terminal device, a duration corresponding to the one first curve…; obtaining, from the service platform by the terminal device, a plurality of durations for which the terminal device stayed at the first travel start position in history; calculating, by the terminal device, an average duration of the plurality of durations…; and calculating, by the terminal device, the sum of the second duration, the third duration, and fourth duration to obtain the first duration” . The limitations of at least “displaying, by the terminal device, a first card when the terminal device receives first travel information…”; “receiving a first operation for the first control”; “displaying, by the terminal device, a first interface in response to the first operation…”; and “setting, by the terminal device, an alarm corresponding to the first time…”, as drafted are drawn to a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). That is, the claims are directed to the concept of alarm setting. If a claim limitation/invention, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, can be construed as describing advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors, business relations, or the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. In particular, the steps together are accomplishing alarm setting, which is related to the managing of personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including at least social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2, Examiner submits that the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Examiner submits that the claims at hand in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The only additional elements that are claimed consist of the terminal device and integrating an SDK of a map applications and obtaining information from this application. To be considered statutory, the claims require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. In this regard, Examiner submits that there are no such additional elements that improve the functioning of a computer to any other technology or technical field, apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment, apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, 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. In fact, the claims include language drawn to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B drawn to determining if the claim recites additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, Examiner submits that the claims in fact do not include any recitation of additional elements that would constitute anything significantly more. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements of the terminal device and integrating a SDK of a map applications and obtaining information from this application, as used in performing the steps of the invention. The additional elements in the claimed steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of computing or processing) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. In view of the recent Berkheimer decision and the Step 2B analysis of the above rejection, Examiner is reiterating the fact that the alarm setting as claimed is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. Said conclusion is made based upon a factual determination supported by the specification, which states that the claimed invention is merely implemented on a terminal device including a processing unit/processor, where the method may be applied to or implemented by the processor, where the processor may be a general-purpose processor (see page 37, [00211], pg. 41, [00229, 00233] and Fig. 15 and 16). Furthermore, Examiner relies on the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s), such as 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); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)). In contrast to the Enfish decision where the claims focused on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data, the present case is drawn to certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36; see Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). Furthermore, the instant claims’ invocation of computers, and/or networks, and/or displays does not transform the claimed subject matter into patent-eligible applications. The claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions “on a set of generic computer components” and display devices. Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *6–7. Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. Such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea. buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353, 1355; see, e.g., Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348–49; Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48. Therefore, these claim limitations, either individually or as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not transform the nature of the claim from the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 7, 9-11, 13, and 22-27, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that constitute statutory matter. The dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims and have been found to either recite additional details that are part of the abstract idea itself (when analyzed under Step 2A Prong One), or include additional details that, when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, recite additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) and fail to add significantly more to the abstract idea (Step 2B). The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claims) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The dependent claims also recite steps that together with the independent claims are accomplishing the overall process of alarm setting, which falls within the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (i.e. commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activity or behaviors; business relations; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the dependent claims are drawn to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raymann et al. (US 2017/0094046 A1) teaches of adjusting alarms based on sleep onset latency.
Flores et al. (US 2019/0391537 A1) teaches of an intelligent wake-up alarm system.
Agarwal et al. (US 2024/0029533 A1) teaches of providing smart alarm information in a computing system using detected alarms.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY Y YOUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-5294. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, 9:00a-3:00p, EST.
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 at (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 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.
/ASHLEY Y YOUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BETH V BOSWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625