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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
The following NON-FINAL Office Action is in response communication filed on 1/23/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-11, 14-15, 17, 19, 21 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 3-9, 14, 17, 19 are currently amended.
Claim 21 is newly presented.
Claims 2, 12, 16, 18, 20 are currently cancelled by Applicant.
Claim 13 is previously cancelled by Applicant.
Claims 1, 3-11, 14-15, 17, 19, 21 are currently under examination and are rejected as follows.
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on MM/DD/YYYY has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 17, 19 are objected to for the following informalities.
Claims 1, 17, 19 recite: “classifying that the first event data structure is duplicative of the second event data structure based on the measure of similarity meets or exceeds a threshold similarity measure” [bolded emphasis added].
Claims 1, 17, 19 are recommended to recite, as an example only: “classifying that the first event data structure is duplicative of the second event data structure when the measure of similarity meets or exceeds a threshold similarity measure”.
Appropriate correction is required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101, is maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn in light of the amendments and Applicant’s arguments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 101:
Step 2A Prong 1:
Applicant argues on page 17 of remarks 1/23/2026:
“…amended independent claim 1 of the instant application recites … ‘applying a natural language processing (NLP) summarization feature’… ‘generate a new notification’… ‘rendering’… ‘wherein the operational parameters include weights of nodes of the at least one first machine learning model that influence the classification of the first event data structure’. These claimed features are inextricably tied to a machine and computer technology.
“Therefore, the Applicant respectfully submits that the features of the amended independent claim 1 do not describe an abstract concept, or a concept similar to those found by the Courts to be Abstract, such as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Despite being performed by a processor, the claims as amended still recite, describe, or set forth managing and prioritizing conflicting events involving people, places, and times on a calendar or schedule, which fall within agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, or business relations as they pertain to commercial or legal interactions; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, each under the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). Additionally, the claims as amended recite, describe, or set forth comparing features of calendar events, determining if events are duplicates or conflicting, summarizing event details, and assessing the quality of consolidated calendar events based on invitee acceptance vs cancellation rates, which, despite being performed by a computer in the claims, can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion), therefore falling under Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III). Examiner points to MPEP2106.04(a)(2) III C finding that computer aided processes such as: 1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer, 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment, 3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process can still be considered to recite a mental process. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Applicant argues on page 18 of remarks 1/23/2026:
“…the Applicant submits that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical
implementation.
“The Applicant's disclosure describes ‘[t]he "bot’ in the illustrative embodiments is
an artificial intelligence (Al) computing tool that automatically operates on event data structures… and applies Al computer models to the event data structures to perform event consolidation which includes event cross-referencing, event conflict resolution, and other event management operations . . . [t]he PECB of the illustrative embodiments operates to proactively merge duplicative event data structures…”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The independent claims as amended include one new additional computer-based element, “natural language processing (NLP) summarization feature”, in addition to the previously presented additional computer-based elements “data processing system”, “electronic calendar”, “machine learning computer model”, “natural language processing (NLP) summarization feature”, “computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having a computer readable program stored therein”, “computing device”, “processor”, and “memory”. Examiner submits the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Event cross-referencing, event conflict resolution, and other event management operations can be viewed as commonplace business methods or mathematical algorithms being applied on a general-purpose computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i)). Furthermore, the amended claim limitations “generating at least one consolidated event data structure based on the merging of the first event data structure with the second event data structure” and “controlling a user interface to render the priority scoring of the generated at least one consolidated event data structure relative to the conflicting event data structure” are indicative of requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(v)).
Applicant argues on page 19 of remarks 1/23/2026:
“…Applicant respectfully refers to Example 42… which recites ‘automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored and notifying the generated message to users.’
“Similar to Example 42… amended independent claim 1 recites features, ‘the merging comprises applying a natural language processing (NLP) summarization feature to reminder or notification settings associated with the first event data structure and the second event data structure ... updating, based on the applying of the NLP summarization feature, the reminder or the notification settings to generate a new notification associated with the consolidated event data structure ... rendering, in the electronic calendar, the generated at least one consolidated event data structure and the new notification associated with the generated at least one consolidated event data structure,’ and therefore, the claim recites a combination of additional elements. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rather than converting and standardizing updated information input by a user for re-transmission to all users, the instant application appears to automate the previously human/manual process of comparing and evaluating existing information (calendar events) and consolidating them when duplicated or conflicting. Unlike Example 42, the claims as amended are still directed to an abstract idea. Furthermore, the regarding the additional element “natural language processing (NLP) summarization feature”: this language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See 101 rejection below for additional details.
Step 2B:
Applicant argues on page 20 of remarks 1/23/2026:
“Further, the features of the amended independent claim 1 add specific limitations
that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional in the field. Therefore, the Applicant
respectfully submits that taking all the claim elements of amended independent claim 1 individually, and in combination, amended independent claim 1 as a whole amounts to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant specification describes a multitude of well-understood, routine, or conventional technology applications, including at ¶ [0045]: “The PECB… includes one or more machine learning computer models, i.e., AI computer models, such as neural networks (e.g., convolutional neural networks (CNNs), deep learning neural networks (DNNs), and the like), random forest computer models, decision tree computer models, and the like”; ¶ [0060]: “Computer 201 may take the form of a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, smart phone, smart watch or other wearable computer, mainframe computer, quantum computer or any other form of computer or mobile device now known”; ¶ [0061]: “Processor set 210 includes one, or more, computer processors of any type now known or to be developed in the future”; ¶ [0068]: “WAN 202 is any wide area network (for example, the internet) capable of communicating computer data over non-local distances by any technology for communicating computer data”; and ¶ [0081]: “The HCI environment may be any suitable HCI environment in which humans interact with applications of computing device, such as a chatbot, an electronic calendar application, electronic communication application, electronic desktop of a computing device, and the like”; among others. Specific details of the technological improvement to the technological problem are unclear as to providing significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, the previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101 is maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 103:
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn in light of the amendments and Applicant’s arguments. Applicant’s arguments pages 21-25, filed 1/23/2026, with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found 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, 3-11, 14-15, 17, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-11, 14-15, 21 are directed to a method or process which is a statutory category.
Claims 17 is directed to a computer readable storage medium or article of manufacture which is a statutory category. [Examiner Note: regarding claim 17 language “a computer readable storage medium”, and “the computer readable storage medium”, the specification discloses in ¶ [0055], “a computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se”.]
Claim 19 is directed to an apparatus or machine which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: The claims recite, describe, or set forth a judicial exception of an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Specifically, the claims recite, describe or set forth agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, business relations, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including: “consolidating event data structures”, “extracting features from the event data structure and at least one other event data structure having an overlapping temporal location”, “…merging, based on the determining that the merging is warranted, the first event data structure with the second event data structure”, “the merging comprises executing consolidation strategy rules comprising logic for: merging participant lists of the first event data structure and the second event data structure, and updating event properties of the first event data structure and the second event data structure”, “resolves conflicting properties between the first event data structure and the second event data structure”, “the executing of the consolidation strategy rules resolves conflicting properties between the first event data structure and the second event data structure”, “generating at least one consolidated event data structure based on the merging of the first event data structure with the second event data structure”, “…generate a new notification associated with the generated at least one consolidated event data structure”, “rendering… at least one consolidated event data structure and the new notification associated with the generated at least one consolidated event data structure”, and “…render the priority scoring of the generated at least one consolidated event data structure relative to the conflicting event data structure”. Managing and prioritizing conflicting events involving people, places, and times on a calendar or schedule falls within agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, or business relations as they pertain to commercial or legal interactions; or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, each under the larger abstract grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, the claims recite, describe or set forth concepts performed in the human mind, (including observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion): “generating a measure of similarity between the extracted features”, “classifying that the first event data structure is duplicative of the second event data structure based on the measure of similarity meets or exceeds a threshold similarity measure”, “determining whether merging of the first event data structure and the second event data structure is warranted based on the classification that the first event data structure is duplicative of the second event data structure”, “applying a summarization… associated with the first event data structure and the second event data structure”, and “generating a priority scoring of the generated at least one consolidated event data structure relative to a conflicting event data structure based on acceptance of invitation for the event, a number of attendees that accepted the invitation, and a number of previous cancellations of the event”. Comparing features of calendar events, determining if events are duplicates or conflicting, summarizing event details, and assessing the quality of consolidated calendar events based on invitee acceptance vs cancellation rates fall within concepts performed in the human mind, (including observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) under the larger abstract grouping of Mental Processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Independent claims 1, 17, 19 recite the following additional elements: “data processing system”, “electronic calendar”, “machine learning computer model”, “natural language processing (NLP) summarization feature”, “computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having a computer readable program stored therein”, “computing device”, “processor”, and “memory”. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of organizing, comparing, prioritizing, communicating, and presenting data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Event cross-referencing, event conflict resolution, and other event management operations can be viewed as commonplace business methods or mathematical algorithms being applied on a general-purpose computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i)).
Furthermore, the amended claim limitations “generating at least one consolidated event data structure based on the merging of the first event data structure with the second event data structure” and “controlling a user interface to render the priority scoring of the generated at least one consolidated event data structure relative to the conflicting event data structure” are indicative of requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(v)).
Further still, regarding the additional elements “machine learning model” and “natural language processing (NLP) summarization feature”: this language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “machine learning model” and “natural language processing (NLP) summarization feature” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: According to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), considering whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the actual technological solution to the actual technological problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover an entrepreneurial and thus abstract solution to an entrepreneurial problem with no technological details on how the technological result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 3, 4 recite the additional element “second machine learning computer model”. Dependent claims 9, 10 recite the additional element “human-computer interaction (HCI) environment”. Dependent claim 21 recites the additional elements “neural network”, “random forest computer model”, and “decision tree computer model”. The additional elements are also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of prioritizing events, receiving and presenting data, executing algorithms, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Further, dependent claims 5-8, 11, 14, 21 merely incorporate the additional elements recited in claims 1, 17, 19 along with further narrowing of the abstract idea of claims 1, 17, 19 along with their execution of the abstract idea. Specifically, the dependent claims narrow the “data processing system”, “electronic calendar”, “first machine learning computer model”, “computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having a computer readable program stored therein”, “computing device”, “processor”, and “memory” to capabilities such as generating, retrieving, determining, matching, processing, comparing, modifying, receiving, updating, rendering, and comprising various forms of data such as event data structures, priority scores, user profiles, event resources, event data structure types, operations, training data, samples of event data, classifications, operational parameters, manual consolidations of event data, user input, natural language, user intent, titles, dates, times, locations, participants, rules, algorithms, logic, user specified prioritization criteria, conditions, reminders, notifications, notification settings, etc. which, when evaluated per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) represent mere invocation of computers to perform existing processes. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually and in combination fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) and for the same reasons they also fail to provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, claims 1, 3-11, 14-15, 17, 19, 21 are reasoned to be patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-11, 14-15, 17, 19, 21 are allowable over the prior art in light of the amendments. However, these claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101. The closest prior art to the invention includes Picciallo US 20160212210 A1, Electronic device with calendaring capabilities; Bhattacharya US 20200293999 A1, Artificial intelligence for calendar event conflict resolution; Toudji US 20180349469 A1, Event extraction systems and methods; and Chlebus US 20240430181 A1, Detecting and validating anomalies from ongoing data collection. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach or suggest the claimed invention as detailed in the independent claims, specifically the following limitations from independent claims 1, 17, 19:
[..] wherein:
the merging comprises applying a natural language processing (NLP) summarization feature to reminder or notification settings associated with the first event data structure and the second event data structure
[..]
updating, based on the applying of the NLP summarization feature, the reminder or the notification settings to generate a new notification associated with the generated at
least one consolidated event data structure;
rendering [..] the new notification associated with the generated at least one consolidated event data structure
[..]
wherein the operational parameters include weights of nodes of the at least one first machine learning computer model that influence the classification of the first event data structure;
generating a priority scoring of the generated at least one consolidated event data
structure relative to a conflicting event data structure based on acceptance of invitation for the event, a number of attendees that accepted the invitation, and a number of previous cancellations of the event [..].
The reason to withdraw the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 14-15, 17, 19, 21 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Examiner reminds Applicant that novelty (35 USC 102) and non-obviousness (35 USC 103) still pertain to features that are mostly abstract that do not render the claims patent eligible (35 USC 101). The novel and non-obviousness rationale above do not necessarily render the claims patent eligible. See for example MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5, 3rd sentence citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 "the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Picciallo US 20160212210 A1, Electronic device with calendaring capabilities.
Bhattacharya US 20200293999 A1, Artificial intelligence for calendar event conflict resolution.
Toudji US 20180349469 A1, Event extraction systems and methods.
Chlebus US 20240430181 A1, Detecting and validating anomalies from ongoing data collection.
Mermelstein WO 2014132248 A1, Apparatus, method, and software products for automatic appointment matching.
Kim, Donghyeon, et al. "Learning user preferences and understanding calendar contexts for event scheduling." Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 2018.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3269206.3271712
Zhao; Yue et al. US 20200311120 A1, Generating digital media clusters corresponding to predicted distribution classes from a repository of digital media based on network distribution history.
Tripathi; Ankit et al. US 20210004670 A1, Training digital content classification models utilizing batchwise weighted loss functions and scaled padding based on source density.
Rotter, Joann Molaro et al. US 20030046280 A1, System for processing and consolidating records.
Mock, Von Alan et al. US 20040125142 A1, Method for sorting and displaying a multiple user database.
Muguda; Naveenkumar V. US 20080071599 A1, Method and system for multi calendar merging.
Lightbody; Patrick et al. US 20220398546 A1, System and methods for managing schedules and calendars.
Oligino; Dean et al. US 20170199771 A1, Systems and methods for calendar synchronization with enterprise web applications.
Logtenberg; Rik US 9384472 B2, Methods and systems for a web-based calendar application.
Lance; John m. et al. US 20110317523 A1, Merging calendar entries.
Bush; Christopher L. et al. US 20090210351 A1, System and Method for Minimizing Redundant Meetings.
Duffy; Gavin et al. US 20220083986 A1, Digital assistant-enabled daily briefings.
Ding; Li et al. US 20130295956 A1, Calendar matching of inferred contexts and label propagation.
Grinolds; Michael et al. US 20190228381 A1, Schedule defragmentation.
Hernandez; Rayne US 20240112086 A1, Automatically linking digital calendar events to activities.
Dotan-Cohen; Dikla et al. US 20190213557 A1, Multi-calendar harmonization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REED M. BOND whose telephone number is (571) 270-0585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/REED M. BOND/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 March 26, 2026
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 March 27, 2026