DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/401,341. In response to Examiner’s action mail dated June 17, 2025, Applicant submitted amendments and arguments. The Applicant amended claim 1, 6, 7, 12, 14 and 19. The claims 1-20 are examined below and are pending in this application.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not submit an information disclosure statement for consideration by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. The claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 14 and 19 are amended.
Applicant’s amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in the previous action. The claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
Regarding prior art, the claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. See below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s argument will be considered herein below.
Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101
On pages 10-18 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, Applicant traverses, Examiner’s rejection. Applicant has amended representative independent claim 1 and claim 11.
The Claims Are Not Directed to a Judicial Exception. On pages 11-12 the Applicant argues the independent claim 1 recites, “generating, based on inputting the historical data into a machine-learned model trained on previous activity data, a recommended calendar event.” Because the claims recite operations that cannot be considered as organizing human activity, Applicant submits that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Prong 1 of step 2A and are, therefore patent eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Step 2A pong one arguments. The claims are generating calendar events, and thus, the claims are directed to managing personal behavior, and therefore, the claims are directed certain methods of organizing human activity.
Although the claims are using historical data in a machine learning model trained on previous activity, the claims at step 2A prong one are abstract. The amendment to append a machine learning model is examined at step 2A prong two.
The Claims Are Integrated into a Practical Application. On pages 11-12 the Applicant respectfully asserts that the claims recite technology which both improves the functioning of a computer, as well as the technology of communication platforms, citing [014], [015], and [028] of the instant specification. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims are integrated into a practical application under Prong 2 of Step 2A and are therefore patent eligible.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Step 2A prong two arguments. The claims are directed to a judicial exception. The additional elements not integrated into the judicial exception, and therefore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)- apply-it. The Applicant is pointed to Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47 – Anomaly Detection and instant application [022]-[025].
The Claim Recite Significantly More than the Alleged Abstract Idea Under Step 2B. The Applicant argue Bascom , an inventive concept can be found in the nonconventional and nongeneric arrangement of known, conventional pieces. Applicant submits as in Bascom, the inventive concept is readily apparent when the claims are considered in combination, as they provide clear improvements to a computer and to the technical field of communication platforms.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant Step 2B arguments. The claims are not similar to Bascom. In Bascom, the claims were generally directed to a content filtering system for restricting access to certain Internet content on a user’s computer or web-enabled device. In Bascom, the court determined if a claim may be found eligible for patentability under 35 U.S.C. §101 even if the claim is directed to an abstract idea if the ordered combination of limitations of the claim add “significantly more” to the claims than the abstract idea itself. This “significantly more” may include improving an existing technological process or improving the performance of a computer system itself. As discussed in Applicant’s arguments on p. 11 “… these techniques may reduce the number of files an/or virtual spaces user profiles may access to determine whether to generate one or more future events. In additional, such techniques can reduce the use of computing resources by reducing the time and steps spent by users to identify relevant previous interactions… such techniques may reduce the computing resource overload as user(s) may not need to run large volumes of reports to identify data indicative of the need for an event.” Here, the Applicant argues reducing the steps spent by users to identify previous interactions, which is abstract. The reduction of computing resources is argued; however, the additional elements and the steps of the additional elements that are reducing the overload are broadly claimed. Applicant should clarify the additional elements that are reducing the computing resource overload as supported by the specification. Examiner points Applicant to SME Guidance Example 40- Network Traffic Monitoring.
Applicant is encouraged to request an interview.
Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103
On pages 10-18, Applicant traverses the prior art rejection. Applicant traverses:
CLAIMS 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, AND 20 ARE PATENTABLE OVER DOTAN-COHEN Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as allegedly being anticipated by Dotan-Cohen. Office Action, p. 7-15. Applicant respectfully submits that these claims stand allowable.
Independent Claim 1 (and similarly claim 7 and claim 14). Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite "generating ... a recommended calendar event that includes a first meeting and a second meeting, wherein the first meeting and the second meeting are associated with separate organizations." (emphasis added). The relevant portions of Dotan-Cohen illustrate generating a single recommended event and displaying the single recommended event on the user calendar. (see Dotan-Cohen, FIG. 6C). Further, in Dotan-Cohen, each recommended event is a sole event that does not include multiple meetings from which the user can select. Further, even if Dotan-Cohen did include a recommended event that included multiple meetings, Dotan-Cohen does not disclose "the first meeting and the second meeting [being] associated with separate organizations." That is, since each recommended event is a separate event, by nature, there are not multiple meetings that correspond to different organizations. As such, Applicant submits that Dotan-Cohen fails to disclose at least "generating ... a recommended calendar event that includes a first meeting and a second meeting, wherein the first meeting and the second meeting are associated with separate organizations," as amended claim 1 recites. For at least the reasons presented herein, Dotan-Cohen does not disclose all of the features of claim 1, as amended. Accordingly, Applicant submits that Dotan-Cohen does not anticipate amended claim 1, and respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 102 rejection of claim.
Dependent Claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 Claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 depend from independent claims 1, 7, and 14. As discussed above, claims 1, 7, and 14, as amended herein, are not anticipated by Dotan-Cohen, and are therefore allowable over the cited document. Therefore, claims 2-4, 6, 8-11, 13, 15-18, and 20 are also allowable over the cited document of record for at least their dependency from an allowable base claim, and also for the additional features that each recites.
CLAIMS 5, 12, AND 19 WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OBVIOUS OVER DOTAN-COHEN IN VIEW OF NECKERMANN The Office rejects claims 5, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being obvious over Dotan-Cohen in view of Neckermann. Office Action, p. 16-18. Applicant respectfully submits that these claims stand allowable as listed above and discussed below. Claims 5, 12, and 19 depend from independent claims 1, 7, and 14, respectively. As discussed above, claims 1, 7, and 14 are allowable over Dotan-Cohen. Neckermann is cited for its alleged teaching of the respective features of dependent claims 5, 12, and 19. However, Neckermann fails to remedy the deficiencies of Dotan-Cohen as noted above with regard to independent claims 1, 7, and 14. Therefore, claims 5, 12, and 19 are also allowable over the cited documents of record for at least their dependency from an allowable base claim, and also for the additional features that each recites. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office withdraw the § 103 rejection of claims 5, 12, and 19.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments. Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitate grounds for a new rejection. See 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- 6 are machine.
Claims 7-13 are manufacture.
Claims 14-20 are method.
Claims 1 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (claim 1 and similarly claim 7 and claim 14) recites, “… determining that a temporal condition that instructs … to suggest calendar events has been satisfied, the temporal condition including a time at which … suggests the calendar events; receiving, in response to the temporal condition being satisfied, data representing historical data including activity data between a user profile and one or more user profiles; generating, based on inputting the historical data into … trained on previous activity data, a recommended calendar event that includes a first meeting and a second meeting, wherein the first meeting is associated with a first organization and the second meeting is associated with a second organization that is different than the first organization; causing the recommended calendar event to be displayed … associated with the user profile; receiving, in response to displaying the recommended calendar event and from the user profile, user input data representing an intent to generate an event associated with the recommended calendar event; and causing, based on the user input data, the event to be generated .…”. Claims 1-20, in view of the claim limitations, are directed to the abstract idea of generating a calendar event. The claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is/are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:”, “ a communication platform”, “a machine-learned model”, “ via a user interface associated with the user profile; ” in claim 1; “One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by one or more processors, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:”, “a machine-learned model”, in claim 7; “ a machine learning model”, in claim 14; however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f)
The dependent claims do not recite additional elements beyond what is recited in the independent claims on which it relies.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more.
At step 2B, it is 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).
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function (s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent claims 2-6 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. Dependent claims 8-13 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 7. Dependent claims 15-20 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 14. The claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 1 -20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dothan-Cohen (US 2019/0205839 A1) in view of Schemers (US 11, 481, 735 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, (and similarly claim 7 and claim 14) (Currently Amended)
A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: determining that a temporal condition that instructs a communication platform to suggest calendar events has been satisfied, the temporal condition including a time at which the communication platform suggests the calendar events;
Dotan- Cohen [004] discloses a methods and systems that may provide a user with an enhanced computing experience by determining and utilizing an optimal user-activity schedule. … based on learned behavior patterns of the user … Future activity likely to be performed by the user also may be determined or inferred and used by the computing system in conjunction with the learned activity patterns to generate one or more optimal activity schedules. A generated schedule may be considered optimal for the user because it is consistent with learned behavior patterns of the user. For example, where a user has a pattern of doing focused work at certain periods of the day, a generated optimal schedule may allocate focus-intensive work during those periods or may avoid scheduling meetings during those times. In some embodiments, a user's current context also may be used for determining or selecting optimal schedules., Dotan-Cohen [004], [051].
Dotan-Cohen [017] discloses examples of user activity patterns may include, without limitation, activity patterns based on time (e.g., a user often accesses and reads documents at certain times of the day), location (e.g., upon arriving at work in the morning, a user typically spends thirty minutes to one hour responding to emails), or other context, as described herein.
receiving, in response to the temporal condition being satisfied, data representing historical data including activity data between a user profile and one or more user profiles;
Dotan-Cohen [Figure 2 item 266, 200, 242] disclose user data collection component and activity pattern determiner, and user activity information. Examples of future activity may include meetings, calendar events. , Dotan-Cohen [Figure 2 item 266, 200, 242], [015], [017], [041].;
Dotan-Cohen [037] discloses consuming optimal schedule information to provide an enhanced user experience, which may include managing a user's calendar or personal schedule, generating personalized content, and/or managing notifications on behalf of the user.
Dotan-Cohen [Figure 6A- 6C] discloses meeting A is scheduled.
Dotan -Cohen [0110], [0149]-[0150], [Figure 6A-6C]
generating, based on inputting the historical data into a machine-learned model trained on previous activity data, a recommended calendar event that includes a first meeting and a second meeting, wherein the first meeting is associated with a first organization and the second meeting is associated with a second organization that is different than the first organization; causing the recommended calendar event to be displayed via a user interface associated with the user profile; receiving, in response to displaying the recommended calendar event and from the user profile, user input data representing an intent to generate an event associated with the recommended calendar event; and causing, based on the user input data, the event to be generated.
Dotan -Cohen [0110] discloses predicted future user activity information included in an optimal activity schedule may be determined from the content of user-related communications (e.g., emails, text or instant messages, voice messages, video and audio recordings, Snapchat® communications, Slack® communications, Skype® communications, Jabber® communications, etc.). In this regard, some embodiments of optimal schedule generator 290 may include one or more analytical applications or services configured to review the content of user communications (both user-initiated and communications received from other persons) to designate communications and content thereof that include probable or likely future user activities that should be included in an optimal activity schedule. These analytical applications or services may utilize topic modeling or automatic summarization (which may include extraction or abstraction) to analyze the content and extract information indicating action items or similar user activity from the content of the communications. In some embodiments, a weighting factor may be applied based on the topic, the persons involved, the level of relation to the user, a frequency of occurrence of the subject in communications, and/or other factors. … an optimal schedule may be generated in which a proposed meeting to discuss the proposal is included. The optimal schedule may be utilized by an optimal-schedule consumer application, such as consumer application 271 discussed further below, to provide a calendar invite for the meeting that may be automatically generated and/or sent to all participants.; Dotan-Cohen [0149] depicts an example calendar application., Dotan -Cohen [0110], [0149]-[0150], [Figure 6A-6C]
Dotan-Cohen [0120] discloses the optimal schedule logic 235 can take many different forms depending on the user activities determined to be likely to occur. For example, some embodiments of optimal schedule logic 235 may employ machine-learning mechanisms or other statistical measures to classify future activity events as types of activity (e.g., a task requiring browsing or light reading may be classified as non-focus-intensive activity) for appropriate allocation in an optimal schedule, or for determining an optimal schedule based on user context, preferences, and/or feedback.
Schemmer further teaches:
a machine-learned model trained on previous activity data, a recommended calendar event that includes a first meeting and a second meeting, wherein the first meeting is associated with a first organization and the second meeting is associated with a second organization that is different than the first organization;
Schemmer teaches managing calendars. prioritizing dozens of calendar data objects directed toa selected user or team thereby reducing or eliminating calendar event conflict and freeing up resources., Schemmer [column 13 lines 5-50]. ; Schemmer discloses FIG. 4 by step 408, the group-based communication server 112 receives a second external calendar event data object from the external calendar resource 102. The second external calendar event data object is analyzed by the group-based communication server 112 to determine the data received. Schemmer [column 27 lines 3-35].
Dotan-Cohen discloses determine a set of activity features associated with the user activity based on the monitored user activity to optimal[ly] schedule user activities. Schemmer teaches managing calendar event data in a group-based communication interface. It would have been obvious to combine determine a set of activity patterns based on analysis of the user activity, as taught by Dotan-Cohen as taught by, with the second external calendar event data object is analyzed by the group-based communication server 112 to determine the data received, to prioritize data. Schemmer [column 4 lines 41-46].
Regarding Claim 2, (and similarly claim 8 and claim 15) (Previously Presented)
The system of claim 1, wherein generating the recommended calendar event is based on: determining that the historical data indicates that the recommended calendar event is to be scheduled; determining, based on the historical data, two or more user profiles to include in the recommended calendar event, the two or more user profiles including the user profile and at least one user profile included in the one or more user profiles; determining, based on the historical data, a time and a day to associate with the recommended calendar event;
See claim 1 - ., Dotan -Cohen [0110], [0149]-[0150], [Figure 6A-6C]
Dotan-Cohen [0116] discloses contextual information may be used to determine potential user commitments that are likely to become future user activity that is then included in an optimal schedule (e.g., for suggestion as a calendar item). …. For example, a user may indicate in an email to another person that the user will respond, provide content, schedule a meeting.
and generating, based on the historical data indicating the event is to be scheduled, the two or more user profiles to include in the recommended calendar event, the time, and the day, the recommended calendar event.
Dotan -Cohen [0115] discloses it may be determined that a user needs to schedule a meeting with another person (e.g., based on communication context indicating such a need). In one circumstance, activity patterns of the user determined or inferred by the activity pattern inference engine 260 may indicate that the user typically schedules meetings to last one hour, and typically in the afternoon. In another circumstance, a context extracted from a user communication by the user activity monitor 280 indicates the user has a preferred time and duration for the meeting (e.g., the following day at 3-4 PM).; Dotan-Cohen [0117] discloses a user's activity events and activity patterns may be parsed to determine which user activities have occurred in the past and which are likely to occur again in the future. This may be determined, in part, from an analysis of the user's past activities or calendar events, commitments, indicated preferences, and other patterns of user activity. For example, a type of user activity (e.g., work-related, personal-related, activity-related, content-related, or another type of user activity) may be determined, a frequency of occurrence of the user activity (e.g., recurring weekly being more likely to occur again in the future) may be determined, a context of the user activity may be determined (e.g., location of the user, persons the user is interacting with, or other context) and any user preferences (e.g., a user accepting or declining certain scheduled user activities in the past) may be used to tailor or tune the selection of user activities included in an optimal schedule.
(Examiner submits it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a meeting that is scheduled considers two or more meeting attendees /participants schedules.)
Regarding Claim 3, (and similarly claim 9 and claim 16) (Previously Presented)
The system of claim 1, wherein the historical data includes at least one of: one or more past calendar events, one or more existing calendar events, one or more voice calls, one or more video calls, one or more exchanged messages, one or more actions performed by the one or more user profiles, or one or more timelines associated with the one or more user profiles.
Dotan-Cohen [043] discloses user-activity information (for example: application usage, online activity, searches, voice data such as automatic speech recognition, activity logs, communications data including calls, texts, instant messages, and emails, website posts, other user data associated with communication events, or other types of user activity information) including, in some embodiments, user activity that occurs over more than one user device, user history, session logs, application data, contacts data, calendar and schedule data, notification data, and social-network data, user-account(s) data (which may include data from user preferences provided from user preferences 246 or feedback component 250, or settings associated with a personal assistant application or service), home-sensor data.
Within claim 3, Dotan- Cohen discloses user-activity information, e-mails, instant message, voice data, session logs, calendar and schedule data …, and thus, Dotan-Cohen discloses one or more past calendar events, one or more existing calendar events, one or more voice calls. Claim 3 a "Markush" claim recites a list of alternatively useable members. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20, 206 USPQ 300, 303 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or a Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing to several sources that describe Markush groups)- See MPEP 706.03.
Regarding Claim 4, (and similarly claim 11 and 18) (Previously Presented)
The system of claim 1, wherein the recommended calendar event comprises a first event and a second event, the operations further comprising: causing the first event to be displayed via the user interface associated with the user profile; and causing, based on the first event being associated with the second event, the second event to be displayed via the user interface associated with the user profile.
Dotan-Cohen discloses a user schedules a meeting for an hour. And the presences indicator indicates “busy: for that hour, the same presence indicator status may also be applied to the 30 minutes period before the meeting, based on activity patterns indicating that user usually prepares for meeting for this amount of time., Dotan- Cohen [0109], [Figure 6C]
(Examiner interprets, the first event: 30 minute period meeting prep and second event: meeting A)
Regarding Claim 6, [and similarly claim 13 and claim 20] (Currently Amended)
The system of claim 1, wherein generating the event comprises: determining that the recommended calendar event includes one or more event parameters, the one or more event parameters including a list of invitees, a date, a time, or a description;
Dotan-Cohen [0110] discloses the optimal schedule may be utilized by an optimal-schedule consumer application, such as consumer application 271 discussed further below, to provide a calendar invite for the meeting that may be automatically generated and/or sent to all participants.;
Dotan-Cohen [0114] discloses participants, types of participants (e.g., boss, co-worker), a topic are pattern is user activity that may be used for scheduling … when generating an optimal schedule. Dotan-Cohen [0111], [0114]
determining that the user input data includes one or more modified event parameters, the one or more modified event parameters including a modified representation of at least one of the list of invitees, the date, the time, or the description; and generating the event based on the one or more modified event parameters.
Dotan-Cohen [0114] discloses and patterns of user activity may be used for scheduling, rescheduling, and/or cancelling certain user activities when generating an optimal schedule. , Dotan-Cohen [0114], [0117]
Within claim 6, Dotan- Cohen discloses user-activity information scheduling data , types of participants, …, and thus, Dotan-Cohen discloses a list of invitees, the date, and time. Claim 3 a "Markush" claim recites a list of alternatively useable members. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20, 206 USPQ 300, 303 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or a Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing to several sources that describe Markush groups)- See MPEP 706.03.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dotan-Cohen (US 2019/0205,839 A1) in view of Schemers (US 11, 481, 735 B1), and in further view of Neckermann (US 2021/0407520 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, [and similarly claim 12 and claim 19] (Previously Presented)
The system of claim 1, wherein generating the recommended calendar event comprises: determining that the historical data is associated with audio input uttered by a second user profile in a previous event;…. ; and generating, based on inputting the text data into the machine-learned model, the recommended calendar event.
See above, Dotan -Cohen [0115], [0117], [0120] discloses calendar events using machine learning and historical data. Dotan [0116] discloses contextual information may be obtained from user communications (e.g., voice messages), which may be analyzed for potential user commitment., Dotan [0116], [0110] , [045]
Although highly suggested, Dotan-Cohan does not explicitly teach:
… converting the audio input into text data …
Neckermann teaches:
… converting the audio input into text data
Neckerman teaches interpretive data can be used to provide context to user data, which can support determinations or inferences made by the components or subcomponents of system 200, such as venue information from a location, a text corpus from user speech (i.e., speech-to-text), or aspects of spoken natural language understanding. Moreover, it is contemplated that for some embodiments, the components or subcomponents of system 200 may use user data and/or user data in combination with interpretive data for carrying out the objectives of the subcomponents, Neckermann [051],
Neckermann [071] discloses analyzing actual utterances that occur in an event.
Dotan-Cohen discloses determine a set of activity features associated with the user activity based on the monitored user activity to optimal[ly] schedule user activities. Neckermann teaches contextual data can be utterances in a meeting that indicate an identity of users. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, determine a set of activity patterns based on analysis of the user activity, as taught by Dotan-Cohen, with speech-to-text services, as taught by Neckermann, to determin[e] an identity of one or more users that use a same audio source., Neckermann [abstract].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miao (2020, Integrated Parallel System for Audio Conferencing Voice Transcription and Speaker Identification)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 /PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights