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
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on January 22, 2026, wherein claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments/remarks have been fully considered but they are geared to the heavily amended claims and newly added limitations. The heavily amended claims with the newly added limitations are considered for the first time rejection below.
35 USC §101 discussion:
Applicant amendments and newly added limitation discuss human interaction with an user-interface while managing a schedule and scheduling conflicts. The user is moving items around the interface (“receiving an operation performed by a user while viewing the schedule table”), determining overlaps, and the scheduling is adjusted/modified (e.g. “when the addition mark overlaps the already set mark on the time axis, moving the already set mark on the time axis in a direction separating from the addition mark, a change amount of the time slot of the already set plan being proportional to an amount by which the addition mark pushes the already set mark”). The display then displays warning, and shifting occurs based on abstract algorithms/steps. Applicant’s core concept is directed to managing schedules with human inputs and adjusting schedules based on abstract known-type algorithms. There is no improvement in any technology/computer/devices itself and/or no improvement in the technical environment itself. The computers, user-interfaces/displays, and “marks” on the display moved by humans are all old well-known generic/general-purpose computers, and/or computer/computing elements/components, etc., where the main concept remains obtaining/receiving information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. plan/tasks/etc., scheduled information, person information, times, availabilities, etc.,), data analysis and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data (figuring out scheduling additional tasks/plans in the schedule/calendar and taking care of conflict/overlaps in the schedule; moving tasks around or finding places on the schedule where new plan/tasks can be added, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making. The limitations of independent claims (1, 12, 13) and dependent claims (2-11), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing schedules and following rules or instructions (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by scheduling tasks/plans/work)).
As stated before, The generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer/computing components/elements/devices, etc., terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
The independent claims (1, 12, 13) and dependent claims (2-11) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
See full rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note: The above §101 discussion under the “Response to Arguments” section is fully incorporated in this rejection and should also be considered part of this rejection.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, claims 1-11 are directed to an apparatus (i.e. machine), claim 12 is directed to a method (i.e., process), and claim 13 is directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. product or article of manufacture). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 12, 13) and dependent claims (2-11) recite obtaining/receiving information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. plan/tasks/etc., scheduled information, person information, times, availabilities, etc.,), data analysis and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data (figuring out scheduling additional tasks/plans in the schedule/calendar and taking care of conflict/overlaps in the schedule; moving tasks around or finding places on the schedule where new plan/tasks can be added, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making. The limitations of independent claims (1, 12, 13) and dependent claims (2-11), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (managing schedules and following rules or instructions (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by scheduling tasks/plans/work)). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); 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 scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer/computing components/elements/devices, etc., (for example, apparatus, memories, processors, displays, , screens, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-11); computer, etc., (in independent claim 12); and non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing, computer, etc., (independent claim 13)) in the context of the claims, the claim encompasses the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (managing schedules and following rules or instructions (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people by scheduling tasks/plans/work))). As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer/computing components/elements/devices, etc., which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer/computing components/elements/devices, etc., terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 12, 13) and dependent claims (2-11) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims (1, 12, 13) and dependent claims (2-11) recite using known and/or generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer/computing components/elements/devices, etc., (for example, apparatus, memories, processors, displays, , screens, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-11); computer, etc., (in independent claim 12); and non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing, computer, etc., (independent claim 13)) and software. For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0027-0033 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se 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. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (2-11) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. plan/tasks/etc., scheduled information, person information, times, availabilities, etc.,), data analysis/manipulation to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision making in scheduling plans/tasks in peoples’ schedules/calendars. These claims are directed towards organizing human activities (managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (scheduling and following rules/instructions)). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite known and/or generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer/computing components/elements/devices, etc., (for example, apparatus, memories, processors, displays, , screens, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-11); computer, etc., (in independent claim 12); and non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing, computer, etc., (independent claim 13)) and software which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer/computing components/elements/devices, etc.,). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. See details above.
Prior art discussion (not a prior art rejection – but remains rejected under §101 above)
As per the independent claims 1, 12, and 13, the closet prior art are Muller (US 2004/0139431) and Cary (US 2005/0222971).
However, neither Muller nor Cary (the closet prior art) disclose during the dragging, when the addition mark overlaps the already set mark on the time axis, moving the already set mark on the time axis in a direction separating from the addition mark, a change amount of the time slot of the already set plan being proportional to an amount by which the addition mark pushes the already set mark; outputting, via the display or a speaker, a warning indicating that the time slot of the already set plan is being shifted; and in response to the dropping, setting the start time and the end time of the additional plan based on the position onto which the addition mark is dropped and updating stored schedule information to reflect (i) the start time and the end time of the additional plan and (ii) a changed start time and a changed end time of the already set plan, wherein, as a result of the moving and the updating, when the already set plan and the additional plan would overlap with each other on the time axis, the start time and the end time of the already set plan are changed such that the already set plan and the additional plan do not overlap with each other. Additionally, given the specific ordered combination of the claim elements in the independent claims cannot be found in the prior art (including art cited in PTO-892) and can only be found in Applicant’s Specification. The prior art of record (including art cite on PTO-892) does not teach or suggest (the reference individually or in combination) Applicant’s current independent claims as a whole (it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that is not rejected under prior art (the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole — limitations organized in the specific form and coming together collectively to form the concept)). Furthermore, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
As per the dependent claims, these claims depend on the independent claims above and incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Note that all the claims are still rejected under §101 rejection and are therefore not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent prior art is as follows:
Baird et al., (US 20070094661): Discusses techniques for scheduling a task that include receiving task data and quorum data. Task data describes tasks to be performed by one or more participants. Quorum data indicates a participant set of one or more participants to perform each task. Current user data may also be received. Current user data describes a current task set of one or more tasks currently being performed by a particular participant. Either or both of the task data and the current user data describe interruptibility through a particular medium of a plurality of communications media. A particular time interval to schedule a particular task is determined based at least in part on the interruptibility of the task or the particular participant. These techniques allow either or both unscheduled tasks and previously scheduled tasks to be moved to time intervals that overlap other scheduled tasks, including tasks currently being performed by a participant.
Mayhak et al., (US 2001/0051888): Provides for managing a health clinic, and in particular to managing/scheduling employees to work in the clinic. The system and method relates to a computer program for computing the needs of patients, determining adequate staffing requirements and displays these needs and requirements in connection with actual scheduling values. Thus, the system provides a tool for quickly determining whether the clinic is overstaffed or understaffed, for the entire day based on patient needs, both direct and indirect patient care needs. The system and method may further use facility limitation information to provide overall efficiency information.
Haeri (US 2006/0190943): Provides for scheduling tasks. One embodiment comprises a system that includes an initial scheduler that schedules a plurality of tasks of an associated priority group within an available schedule time period based on an earliest possible end time of a task duration of a respective task, such that tasks that have a task duration that overlap task durations of scheduled tasks are unscheduled tasks. The system further includes a reintroduction scheduler that moves scheduled tasks within respective task time ranges to create time interval gaps for the unscheduled tasks, wherein an unscheduled task is scheduled by the reintroduction scheduler if an unscheduled task has a task duration that falls within an available time interval gap and a task time range that overlaps the available time interval gap.
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 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 GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625