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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending and stand rejected.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The analysis is guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework. First, determining if the claims are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. In the instant case, the claims are directed to a process. Second, determining if the claims are directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, i.e., a judicially recognized exception (both individually and as an ordered combination). In the instant case, the claims are directed to an abstract idea of a method for organizing human activity--specifically managing personal behavior and relationships between people. The claims are directed to organizing and managing person-to-person meetings. A “manager of the organization” determines that a person has departed from an organization and they are then removed from a future scheduled meeting.
Further analysis of Step 2B determines if the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. In the instant case, the claims do not transform the subject matter into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea (i.e., significantly more than the abstract idea implemented using generic computer components).
More specifically, the claims 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 independent claims recite the additional limitations of terms such as “user profiles,” “recommendation lists,” “user interfaces,” “organization chart,” and “input data,” which are recited as performing generic computing and functions routinely used in computing applications. Certain terminology, such as “recommendation lists” and “organization chart” are also not necessarily specific to or grounded in computing functionality.
Such generic functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic network components for the steps do not provide a provide a practical application to deal with implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination does not add that beyond which is already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are dependent claims that depend on independent claims 1, 7, and 14. The dependent claims add additional steps and limitations such as a “set of events,” additional “user profiles,” “user roles,” and “historical data.” These additional terms fail to resolve the above problems, as they recite either generic computing terminology or direct human interaction. Therefore, dependent claims 2-6, 8-13, and 15-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Taylor whose telephone number is (571) 272-3889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (9:00am - 5:00pm).
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. 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.
/NICHOLAS R TAYLOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights