DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/268,408 filed on 06/20/2023. Claims 1-2, 5-11, 16, and 17 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/268,408 filed 06/20/2023 is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2021/063160, International Filing Date: 12/13/2021, and claims foreign priority to LU102456, filed 01/29/2021.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed June 16, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 6-9, and 11, and cancelled claims 3-4 and 12-15. New claims 16 and 17 were presented for examination.
5. Applicant's amendments to claim 11 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued objection of claim 11; accordingly, this objection has been removed.
6. Claim 3 was cancelled; accordingly, the previously issued rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
7. Applicant's amendments to claims 1-2, 6-9, and 11 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2025, have been fully considered.
9. Applicant submits “Regarding the remaining claim, the Applicant traverses the rejection. Claim 1 has been amended as shown above. During the Examiner Interview, Examiner Garcia kindly pointed out that, as amended, the claims are closer to being eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. The Applicant submits that, as amended, claim 1, along with claims 2 and 5-11, which depend from claim 1, are eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and requests that the rejection be withdrawn.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 06/16/2025, page 8]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response, it is first noted that contrary to Applicant’s statement, the Examiner did not agree that “as amended, the claims are closer to being eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101.” As noted in the Examiner Interview Summary, dated June 13, 2025 “With respect to a technical solution, Examiner suggested that details of how a technological solution is accomplished should be explicitly recited in the claims. In response to Applicant’s argument, Examiner indicated that while the proposed amended claim recites “creating a process flow comprising multiple operations; performing identification of new candidate meetings by dividing the process flow into separate operation streams to execute in parallel and adjusting a different parameter in each separate operation stream to provide respective candidate meeting lists based on the calendar data for each different parameter; and combining the respective candidate meeting lists to identify the new candidate meeting suggestion,” the execution in parallel as currently recited does not offer an additional element beyond the abstract idea itself and the claim does not explain what the implementation entails technically. The participants discussed the possibility of further amending the claims to incorporate additional technical features supported by the Specification though not yet claimed in pursuit of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application and advancing prosecution. No agreements were reached during the interview.” Accordingly, this argument is argument is not found persuasive.
Second, it is noted that Applicant has not presented specific arguments against the rejections raised in the previous Office action. The amendments are believed to be fully addressed via the new and updated rejections set forth in the instant Office action.
Lastly, it is noted that the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
For the reasons above along with the reasons set forth in the updated §101 rejection set forth below, Applicant’s amendments and argument concerning the §101 rejection are not sufficient to overcome the rejection.
10. Applicant submits “Regarding the remaining claims, the Applicant traverses the rejection. Claim 1 has been amended as shown above. During the Examiner Interview, Examiner Garcia kindly pointed out that, as amended, the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103. Therefore, the Applicant requests that the rejections be withdrawn.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 06/16/2025, page 9]
In response, it is first noted that contrary to Applicant’s statement, the Examiner did not agree that “as amended, the claims overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103.” As noted in the Examiner Interview Summary, dated June 13, 2025 “The Examiner also noted that additional consideration and an updated search of the prior art would be required in order to determine the impact of the proposed changes. Examiner awaits response by Applicant and said she would consider the amendments and arguments after a response was formally filed. No agreements were reached during the interview.”
Applicant's amendments have been considered and deemed sufficient to overcome the §103 rejection of claims 1, 16, and 17. Accordingly, the §103 rejection of claims 1-2, 5-11, 16, and 17 is withdrawn. More specifically, the Examiner finds all of the limitations of the independent claims to be integrated in a manner that is not rendered obvious over the prior art of record. Allowable Subject Matter is provided below.
11. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are
directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
12. Claims 1, 16, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
Claim 1 was amended to recite “receiving a set of input parameters as meeting constraints, the set of input parameters including: a meeting organizer attendee identifier associated with a organizer attendee…” Claim 1 should recite “receiving a set of input parameters as meeting constraints, the set of input parameters including: a meeting organizer attendee identifier associated with an organizer attendee….” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 recites “a meeting organizer attendee identifier associated with a organizer attendee…” Claim 16 should recite “a meeting organizer attendee identifier associated with an organizer attendee….” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites “a meeting organizer attendee identifier associated with a organizer attendee…” Claim 17 should recite “a meeting organizer attendee identifier associated with an organizer attendee….” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
13. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
14. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
15. Claim 2 was amended to recite “wherein processing the calendar data comprises: identifying multiple candidate meetings the first set of processors and the second set of processors; pruning the multiple candidate meetings as a function of a first input parameter and a second input parameter to generate a sorted list of candidate meetings.” However, it is unclear as to what “identifying multiple candidate meetings the first set of processors and the second set of processors” in claim 2 is referring to, therefore rendering the claim indefinite. The phrase “identifying multiple candidate meetings the first set of processors and the second set of processors," is indefinite because it is unclear if the claim is intended to recite “identifying multiple candidate meetings using the first set of processors and the second set of processors” or if the phrase “the first set of processors and the second set of processors” is intended to be part of a separate limitation. Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
16. 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.
17. Claims 1-2, 5-11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
18. Claims 1-2, 5-11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-2, 5-11), a machine-readable storage device (claim 16), and device (claim 17) are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, article of manufacture, and device, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-2, 5-11, 16, and 17 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite abstract ideas that fall into the (1) “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” by setting forth steps for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: receiving a set of input parameters as meeting constraints, the set of input parameters including: a meeting organizer attendee identifier associated with a organizer attendee and multiple additional meeting attendee identifiers associated with meeting attendees; a duration of the meeting; and a time frame within which to schedule the meeting; accessing calendar data from one or more servers storing calendar data corresponding to the organizer attendee and the meeting attendees based on the respective identifiers; processing the calendar data against the received set of input parameters to identify candidate meetings; in response to no candidate meeting matching all the set of input parameters: automatically adjusting at least one parameter; identifying a new candidate meeting by creating a process flow comprising multiple operations; performing identification of new candidate meetings by dividing the process flow into separate operation streams to execute in parallel; adjusting different parameters in each separate operation stream to provide respective candidate meeting lists based on the calendar data for each different parameter, wherein: the set of input parameters is a shared data structure; a first set of processors accesses the shared data structure and adjusts a first parameter of the different parameters in a first operation stream of the operation streams; a second set of processors accesses the shared data structure and adjusts a second parameter of the different parameters in a second operation stream of the operation streams; and combining the respective candidate meeting lists to identify a new candidate meeting suggestion; and communicating the new candidate meeting suggestion to the meeting organizer. Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Certain methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry. Independent claims 16 and 17 recite similar limitations as the above-noted limitations recited in claim 1 and are therefore found to recite the same abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited in the claims are: one or more servers, a shared data structure, a first set of processors accesses the shared data structure, and a second set of processors accesses the shared data structure (claim 1), a machine-readable storage device having instructions, a processor of a machine, one or more servers, a shared data structure, a first set of processors accesses the shared data structure, and a second set of processors accesses the shared data structure (claim 16), a processor, a memory device coupled to the processor and having a program stored thereon, one or more servers, a shared data structure, a first set of processors accesses the shared data structure, and a second set of processors accesses the shared data structure (claim 17). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the step for receiving is not deemed part of the abstract idea, this step is at most directed to insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements recited in the claims are: one or more servers, a shared data structure, a first set of processors accesses the shared data structure, and a second set of processors accesses the shared data structure (claim 1), a machine-readable storage device having instructions, a processor of a machine, one or more servers, a shared data structure, a first set of processors accesses the shared data structure, and a second set of processors accesses the shared data structure (claim 16), a processor, a memory device coupled to the processor and having a program stored thereon, one or more servers, a shared data structure, a first set of processors accesses the shared data structure, and a second set of processors accesses the shared data structure. Accordingly, these computing elements amount to using a generic computer programmed with computer-executable instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes generic computing devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (See, Spec. at paragraph 0074: “Although the example computing device is illustrated and described as computer 800, the computing device may be in different forms in different embodiments. For example, the computing device may instead be a smartphone, a tablet, smartwatch, smart storage device (SSD), or other computing device including the same or similar elements as illustrated and described with regard to FIG. 8. Devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches, are generally collectively referred to as mobile devices or user equipment.”). Accordingly, the generic computing elements and instructions (software) do not add significantly more to the claim.
With respect to the receiving step, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), nor add significantly more because such activity has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - 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).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2 and 5-11 recite the same abstract ideas 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) along with, at most, additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. In particular, dependent claims 2 and 5-11 further narrow the abstract ideas recited in independent claim 1 by reciting additional details or steps that recite limitations that fall under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping. For example, dependent claims 2 and 5-11 recite “wherein processing the calendar data comprises: identifying multiple candidate meetings the first set of processors and the second set of processors; pruning the multiple candidate meetings as a function of a first input parameter and a second input parameter to generate a sorted list of candidate meetings; combining the sorted list of candidate meetings from each processor into a final list of candidate meetings; and wherein identifying a new candidate meeting suggestion comprises selecting the new candidate meeting from the final list of candidate meetings,” “wherein the set of input parameters are received via a meeting form and wherein the new candidate meeting suggestion comprises a revised meeting form,” “wherein the multiple additional meeting attendee identifiers comprise at least one of a person identifier, a resource identifier, or a meeting room identifier,” “wherein the new candidate meeting is identified based on the organizer attendee having a timeframe conflict wherein all the meeting attendees are available during the timeframe, the method further comprising: receiving an indication that the meeting organizer will clear the conflict; and scheduling the meeting using the timeframe,” “wherein the new candidate meeting is identified based on all attendees being available during a second time frame having a duration less than a duration parameter, the method further comprising: generating a second request to schedule the meeting using the second time frame; sending the second request to the organizer attendee; receiving an acceptance in response to the sending of the second request; and scheduling the meeting using the second time frame,” “wherein the new candidate meeting is identified based on one of the multiple additional meeting attendees having a timeframe conflict, the method further comprising: sending a first request to one attendee of the multiple additional meeting attendees to clear the timeframe conflict; receiving an indication that the one attendee will clear the timeframe conflict; and scheduling the meeting using a first candidate timeframe,” “wherein adjusting at least one parameter comprises at least one of excluding an additional meeting attendee and adjusting the time frame to occur outside the input time frame parameter,” “further comprising identifying multiple additional new candidate meeting suggestions by adjusting one or more of the set of input parameters and sending at least one of the multiple additional new candidate meeting suggestions to the organizer attendee”; however these steps also recite limitations falling within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping via steps/details directly in support of scheduling a meeting. Dependent claims recite additional elements of the first set of processors and the second set of processors (claim 2). However, when evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, these additional elements do not amount to a practical application or significantly more since they merely require generic computing devices (or computer-implemented instructions/code) which as noted in the discussion of the independent claims above is not enough to render the claims as eligible.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) 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.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
19. Claims 1-2, 5-11, 16, and 17 are allowable over prior art. With respect to independent claims 1, 16, and 17, the closest prior art, Jon et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0347982 A1) and VanBlon et al., (Pub. No.: US 2021/0192467 A1), collectively teach features for receiving a set of input parameters as meeting constraints, the set of input parameters including: a meeting organizer attendee identifier associated with a organizer attendee and multiple additional meeting attendee identifiers associated with meeting attendees; a duration of the meeting; and a time frame within which to schedule the meeting; accessing calendar data from one or more servers storing calendar data corresponding to the organizer attendee and the meeting attendees based on the respective identifiers; processing the calendar data against the received set of input parameters to identify candidate meetings; in response to no candidate meeting matching all the set of input parameters: automatically adjusting at least one parameter; and communicating the new candidate meeting suggestion to the meeting organizer [See Office Action mailed 03/18/2025 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter].
However, with respect to the amended limitations, while Jon teaches identifying a new candidate meeting by: creating a process flow comprising multiple operations (paragraphs 0007, 0084, 0105, 0276) and adjusting different parameters (paragraphs 0051, 0053, 0182), Jon et al. and VanBlon et al. does not teach identifying a new candidate meeting by performing identification of new candidate meetings by dividing the process flow into separate operation streams to execute in parallel; adjusting different parameters in each separate operation stream to provide respective candidate meeting lists based on the calendar data for each different parameter, wherein: the set of input parameters is a shared data structure; a first set of processors accesses the shared data structure and adjusts a first parameter of the different parameters in a first operation stream of the operation streams; and a second set of processors accesses the shared data structure and adjusts a second parameter of the different parameters in a second operation stream of the operation streams, as recited in amended claim 1 (and as similarly encompassed by independent claims 16 and 17).
The prior art of record, including the following newly found references, fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed invention as a whole. With respect to the newly presented limitations “identifying a new candidate meeting by performing identification of new candidate meetings by dividing the process flow into separate operation streams to execute in parallel; adjusting different parameters in each separate operation stream to provide respective candidate meeting lists based on the calendar data for each different parameter, wherein: the set of input parameters is a shared data structure; a first set of processors accesses the shared data structure and adjusts a first parameter of the different parameters in a first operation stream of the operation streams; and a second set of processors accesses the shared data structure and adjusts a second parameter of the different parameters in a second operation stream of the operation streams,” Egan et al., Pub. No.: US 2015/0058057 A1 discloses a system that generates and ranks candidate meeting times based on a set of meeting constraint and preferences, including participant availability, location, and other factors. The system uses scoring and ranking mechanisms to optimize scheduling decisions. However, while Egan discloses generating meeting candidates based on constraints, it fails to teach or suggest dividing the scheduling process into parallel operation streams. It operates in a sequential or singular optimization model. Additionally, it does not disclose adjusting different parameters in different parallel stream nor the use of a shared data structure accessed by multiple processors. Hailpern et al., Pub. No. US 2016/0342953 A1 discusses automatic event rescheduling and conflict resolution using event priorities, enabling automatic adjustment or rescheduling of lower-priority event to accommodate higher-priority meetings. Although Hailpern et al. addresses adjusting parameters to resolve conflict, the adjustments occur within a single operation flow, and there is no disclosure of parallel execution. Hailpern also does not teach that different parameters are adjusted independently in different streams. Furthermore, no shared data structure is described, nor is there a mechanism for combining candidate meetings from separate processing streams.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are directed to allowable subject matter because the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach: “A computer implemented method for scheduling a meeting, the method comprising: receiving a set of input parameters as meeting constraints, the set of input parameters including: a meeting organizer attendee identifier associated with a organizer attendee and multiple additional meeting attendee identifiers associated with meeting attendees; a duration of the meeting; and a time frame within which to schedule the meeting; accessing calendar data from one or more servers storing calendar data corresponding to the organizer attendee and the meeting attendees based on the respective identifiers; processing the calendar data against the received set of input parameters to identify candidate meetings; in response to no candidate meeting matching all the set of input parameters: automatically adjusting at least one parameter; identifying a new candidate meeting by creating a process flow comprising multiple operations; performing identification of new candidate meetings by dividing the process flow into separate operation streams to execute in parallel; adjusting different parameters in each separate operation stream to provide respective candidate meeting lists based on the calendar data for each different parameter, wherein: the set of input parameters is a shared data structure; a first set of processors accesses the shared data structure and adjusts a first parameter of the different parameters in a first operation stream of the operation streams; a second set of processors accesses the shared data structure and adjusts a second parameter of the different parameters in a second operation stream of the operation streams; and combining the respective candidate meeting lists to identify a new candidate meeting suggestion; and communicating the new candidate meeting suggestion to the meeting organizer,” as recited in amended claim 1, “A machine-readable storage device having instructions for execution by a processor of a machine to cause the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a set of input parameters as meeting constraints, the set of input parameters including: a meeting organizer attendee identifier associated with a organizer attendee and multiple additional meeting attendee identifiers associated with meeting attendees; a duration of the meeting; and time frame within which to schedule the meeting; accessing calendar data from one or more servers storing calendar data corresponding to the organizer attendee and the meeting attendees based on the respective identifiers; processing the calendar data against the received set of input parameters to identify candidate meetings; in response to no candidate meeting matching all the set of input parameters: automatically adjusting at least one parameter; identifying a new candidate meeting by: creating a process flow comprising multiple operations; performing identification of new candidate meetings by dividing the process flow into separate operation streams to execute in parallel; adjusting different parameters in each separate operation stream to provide respective candidate meeting lists based on the calendar data for each different parameter, wherein: the set of input parameters is a shared data structure; a first set of processors accesses the shared data structure and adjusts a first parameter of the different parameters in a first operation stream of the operation streams; a second set of processors accesses the shared data structure and adjusts a second parameter of the different parameters in a second operation stream of the operation streams; and combining the respective candidate meeting lists to identify a new candidate meeting suggestion; and communicating the new candidate meeting suggestion to the meeting organizer”, as recited in claim 16, and “A device comprising: a processor; and a memory device coupled to the processor and having a program stored thereon for execution by the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a set of input parameters as meeting constraints, the set of input parameters including: a meeting organizer attendee identifier associated with a organizer attendee and multiple additional meeting attendee identifiers associated with meeting attendees; a duration of the meeting; and a time frame within which to schedule the meeting; accessing calendar data from one or more servers storing calendar data corresponding to the organizer attendee and the meeting attendees based on the respective identifiers; processing the calendar data against the received set of input parameters to identify candidate meetings; in response to no candidate meeting matching all the set of input parameters: automatically adjusting at least one parameter; identifying a new candidate meeting by: creating a process flow comprising multiple operations; performing identification of new candidate meetings by dividing the process flow into separate operation streams to execute in parallel; adjusting different parameters in each separate operation stream to provide respective candidate meeting lists based on the calendar data for each different parameter, wherein: the set of input parameters is a shared data structure; a first set of processors accesses the shared data structure and adjusts a first parameter of the different parameters in a first operation stream of the operation streams; a second set of processors accesses the shared data structure and adjusts a second parameter of the different parameters in a second operation stream of the operation streams; and combining the respective candidate meeting lists to identify a new candidate meeting suggestion; and communicating the new candidate meeting suggestion to the meeting organizer”, as recited in newly presented claim 17, thus rendering claims 1-2, 5-11, 16, and 17 as allowable over prior art. However, claims 1-2, 5-11, 16, and 17 are not allowable because they remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 2 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A. Grinolds et al., Pub. No.: US 2019/0228381 A1 – describes generating meeting schedules optimized for one or more users.
B. Chun, Andy, Hon Wai, and Rebecca YM Wong. "Optimizing agent-based meeting scheduling through preference estimation." Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 16.7-8 (2003): 727-743 – describes an agent-based environment within which meeting scheduling can be performed and optimized.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. 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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625