DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed on February 20, 2026 has been entered. The examiner
acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues that amended claims recite features that can only be performed by a computing device and are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Examiner notes that if that was correct, then potentially all patent applications employing computers would be eligible. The Examiner notes that non-statutory subject matter, as described in the claims can become allowable when integrated with a practical application. Said practical application involves improving the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106,05(a). Additionally, the integration of an additional element or elements as part of implementing a judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture integral to the claim (MPEP 2106.05(b) likewise can present a practical application. The invention employs additional elements that would be conventional in a group-based communication platform, namely computing devices, one or more processors, and non-transitory computer readable media. These do not deliver a practical application. The machine learning model is not conventional in a communication platform, but the application of it to the invention appears to be basic data processing and evaluation, providing results that are applied to managing calendar bookings. This presents itself as a software program run on a processor in a case of “apply it,” essentially including instructions to implement an abstract idea(s) on a computer or as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specific innovative implementation techniques, routinely described in terms of an algorithm expressing somewhat high-level logic or rationale for the calculations made in the model, were not apparent. Since the amended claims did not present the necessary practical application, the claims continue to be directed to non-statutory subject matter and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims overcome previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and are withdrawn. Rejections to the dependent claims, because of their inherent dependency on the independent claims, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are also withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-20 are directed to a process (method), machine (system), and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of organizing and prioritizing meetings for attendees and sending and receiving responses to the invitation.
Claim 1 discloses A method, comprising:
receiving, from a user, a first request to schedule a first meeting between additional users, wherein the user is included in, or excluded from, the additional users; (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
sending, to the additional users, a first invitation to the first meeting;
sending, at a first time, based at least in part on determining that a pre-determined period of time since a start time of the first meeting has elapsed and that an additional user of the additional users has yet to join the first meeting, a meeting reminder to the additional user; (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
receiving, at a second time that is subsequent to the first time, an indication of one or more actions of the additional user in association with the first meeting; ((managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
generating a model by inputting, into the model, factors associated with previously conducted meetings, wherein the factors include meeting invitations associated with the previously conducted meetings, attendees and non-attendees of the previously conducted meetings, one or more attendees that were late to the previously conducted meetings, reminders for invited attendees that were not present at a beginning of the previously conducted meetings, and indications of
whether the invited attendees joined the previously conducted meetings after receiving the reminders; (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
inputting, into the model, data associated with the additional user, wherein the data includes past behavior of the additional user regarding meetings in which the additional user was invited, the meeting reminder, and the one or more actions of the additional user; (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
generating, based at least in part on the data and by the model, an output associated with the additional user; (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
generating, based at least in part on the output, the indication of the one or more actions of the additional user, and a determination that a current time is past an end time of the first meeting, one or more meeting recommendations associated with the additional user with respect to future meetings that have yet to occur, the one or more meeting recommendations including a suggestion to remove the additional user from the future meetings that include the additional users as participants; (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
sending the one or more meeting recommendations to at least one of the user or the additional user; receiving, from the user, a second request to schedule a second meeting between the additional users, wherein the second meeting is one of the future meetings and the additional user is excluded from the additional users; (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
sending, to the additional users, but not the additional user, a second invitation to the second meeting, (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method to send additional reminders to the additional user, (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion -claim 2); receive information about the additional user including number of meetings missed, average amount of time the additional user is late to previous meetings, and that number compared to a threshold time, or a total amount of time missed from all previous meetings, that compared to another threshold, and determining that the additional user is exhibiting one of those attributes- (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion- claim 3); and determine if the additional user attended the first meeting, was absent from the first meeting joined the first meeting after receiving the reminder and how long after the start the additional user joined the first meeting, (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion– claim 4); where the user determines the pre-determined period of time after start time, (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion– claim 5); where a second reminder is sent to the additional user after a second period of time since the start time has elapsed, (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 6);
where the meeting reminder includes a reply option indicating the additional user is running late, will not attend or has a meeting conflict, a selectable control for reminders, (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 7); where the invitation includes a priority score from the machine learning model based on meeting urgency, priority, duration, reoccurrence, or highest position of another user, (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 8); where the priority score is a first priority score, an indication to update the first priority score to a second priority score, (managing relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - claim 9).
Each of these claimed limitations employ: organizing human activity in the form of following rules or instructions, performing mental processes including, observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Claims 10-20 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 1-9.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as one or more computing devices of a group-based communication platform, a trained machine-learning (ML) model, one or more processors, and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 10, and 16, are not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1, 10, and 16.
The closest prior art to the invention includes Cree, (US5093901A), “System for Exchanging
Electronic Calendars Based on Entries and Classification Among Users of the System,” Shah, (US 20200271963 A1), “Systems and Method for Customized Reminders,” Adamson, (US 20190332994 A1), “Generating Insights about Meetings in an Organization,” and Bhattacharya, (US 20200293999 A1), “Artificial Intelligence for Calendar Event Conflict Resolution.” None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Regarding Claim 1, A method, implemented at least in part by one or more
computing devices of a group-based communication platform, Cree teaches, (type of calendaring arrangement that has developed in the prior art involves multi-user environments having a large number of terminals or workstations which are generally part of a larger communication network, [1:49-52]), the method comprising:
receiving, from a user associated with the group-based communication platform, a first request to schedule a first meeting between additional users of the group-based communication platform, wherein the user is included in, or excluded from, the additional users; Cree teaches, (The invention enables an end user (invitor) who maintains a calendar on the information processing system to schedule a meeting
and invite other end users (invitees) who maintain respective calendars on the system to the meeting, [2:63-67]),
sending, to the additional users, a first invitation to the first meeting; (The invitor sends each of the invitees a meeting notice or request, [2:67- 3:1]),
sending, at a first time, based at least in part on determining that a pre-determined period of time since a start time of the first meeting has elapsed and that an additional user of the additional users has yet to join the first meeting, a meeting reminder to the additional user; Cree does not teach, Shah teaches, (systems and methods are provided to automatically determine when a meeting reminder should be provided, a re-reminder triggered such as based on a user's action or lack of action, and/or the type(s) of reminders that should be provided (e.g., tones, louder tones, different tones, spoken warnings, SMS messages, etc.). Additionally, or alternatively, upon determining the user will be late, or late beyond a threshold amount of time, automatic notification may be provided to the host and/or participants, which may include a specific amount of time the user will be late, Shah, [0008]),
receiving, at a second time that is subsequent to the first time, an indication of one or more actions of the additional user in association with the first meeting; Cree does not teach, Shah teaches, (a re-reminder triggered such as based on a user's action or lack of action, [0008]).
generating a trained machine-learning (ML) model by training an ML model, wherein training the ML model includes inputting, into the ML model, factors associated with previously conducted meetings, Cree does not teach ML models, Bhattacharya teaches artificial intelligence for prioritizing calendar events, but not invitations or reminders, Shah teaches ML to enable a system to determine the timing and type of reminder necessary for a person to attend a meeting, Shah, [0010], but not previous invitations, other attendees or previously late attendees. Prior art does not teach information about meeting invitations associated with the previously conducted meetings, attendees and non-attendees of the previously conducted meetings, one or more attendees that were late to the previously conducted meetings, reminders for invited attendees that were not present at a beginning of the previously conducted meetings, and indications of whether the invited attendees joined the previously conducted meetings after receiving the reminders;
inputting, into the trained ML model, data associated with the additional user, wherein the data includes past behavior of the additional user regarding meetings in which the additional user was invited, the meeting reminder, and the one or more actions of the additional user; Prior art does not teach the role of the additional user and specific actions on the part of the additional user.
None of the prior art alone or in combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in claim 1 wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Claims 10 and 16 are not rejected for reasons similar to those of claim 1. The addition of a system and a non-transitory computer readable medium do not change the rationale for not rejecting these claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624