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 .
Acknowledgements
Claims 3-6, and 15-17 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 7-14, and 18 are pending.
Applicant did not provide information disclosure statement.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 with respect to 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 12
However, the pending claims have been substantially amended to eliminate all such non-technical subject matter and now expressly define a computer-implemented architecture for dynamic synchronization and visualization of distributed resource-state data. The present claims are thus directed to a concrete technological system rather than to a method of organizing human activity.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The act of synchronization is merely updating and analyzing data and the visualization seen in the claims is merely a step to display data. Analyzing, updating, and displaying data are still abstract idea steps that fall in the mental process grouping. The computer implemented architecture is merely a tool used to carryout the abstract idea steps. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include 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).
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 that the claimed invention provides a technical improvement such as improving functioning of a computer. Applicant states
This specific and structured computational arrangement improves the functioning of distributed computer systems by enhancing synchronization accuracy, network efficiency, and security of resource-state visualization. Such improvements are comparable to the types of computer-centric enhancements found patent-eligible in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (improvement in database architecture); Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (configurable memory system); and Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., 965 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (improved packet-flow detection in network monitoring).
Examiner Respectfully Disagrees.
The claims are not solving a technical problem nor do they provide a technical solution. The Applicant’s specification in para 0002-0004 talks about the problem of efficiently scheduling appointments and managing a calendar. These are mere business problems and not a technical problem. A technical problem is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes.
In addition, the specification makes no mention of accuracy with synchronization as stated by the Applicant. In addition, the specification makes no mention of enhancing security. The additional element of the security module merely carries out abstract idea steps of determining data such as authenticating a user.
Applicant argues on page 13-14
Even if the Examiner were to regard certain aspects as abstract, the claims, taken as an ordered combination, recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The combination of (i) metadata linking of priority and operational-state information, (ii) real-time synchronization across authenticated distributed systems, (iii) encrypted transmission through an encrypting/decrypting unit, (iv) authentication of users by a security module prior to session initiation, and (v) dynamic generation of customized visualizations based on synchronized metadata, is neither well-understood, routine, nor conventional in the art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner did not used the language well understood, routine, or conventional when rejecting the claims under 35 USC 101 from the 8/14/2025 office action. The 101 rejection was not on the basis of step 2b being well understood, routine, or conventional but rather in the manner of "apply it.” Accordingly, Berkheimer evidence is not required. In addition, the Applicant is claiming things that are not recited in the claims such as real-time synchronization.
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 1-2, 7-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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 than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1-2, 7-14, and 18 are directed to a system and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1-2, 7-14, and 18 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 18 recite the limitations of
…categorize…a plurality of users into a plurality of groups based on a first input received from the first user; assign…a priority level to each of the plurality of groups based on a second input received from the first user; store…the plurality of groups and the users categorized into each of the plurality of groups; and the priority level of each of the plurality of groups; receive…operational-state data of the first user representing temporal resource-availability parameters associated with digital interaction…generate…meta data linking the stored group and priority information with the operational-state data, and synchronize the meta data…to form a unified resource-state dataset; identify, for a request received…the category associated with the second user, and retrieve, from the unified resource-state dataset. corresponding resource-state information of the first user…dynamically generate…a customized resource-state visualization of the first user for rendering…wherein the visualization is based on the synchronized meta data, the retrieved category. and the priority level of the group to which the second user belongs, transmit customized resource-state visualization for display, wherein the transmission is performed through… and provide the second data processing system…controlled access to a…session environment associated with the first user, and authorize a bidirectional data exchange…wherein the authorization is verified by…authenticating both users prior to session initiation
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of categorizing, assigning, storing, receiving, generating, synchronizing, identifying, retrieving, transmitting, providing, and authorizing data. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the language of a system and first/second data processing system, the claim language encompasses simply categorizing and assigning a priority to users/groups based on an inputs and storing that data. In addition, the claims recite receiving data, generating metadata, synchronizing data, identifying categories, retrieving data, generating/transmitting a visualization, providing controlled access, and authorizing data. These are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer.
Since the claims deal with categorizing and assigning priority to users (e.g. customers as seen in para 0073 of Applicant’s specification) with respect to scheduling appointments, and synchronizing meta data with respect to a calendar, the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (sales activity fundamental economic principles or practices; business relations, interactions between people). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of system, processor, first/second data processing system, server, non-transitory memory, secured connection, communication link, categorization module, priority assigner module, database, synchronization module, encrypted communication channels, encrypting/decrypting unit, virtual room, virtual lounge, virtual session object, networked session environment, system, and security module.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe availability status of a user such as being busy or available. In addition, the dependent claims further recite how notifications are received such as by a text message.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
system, processor, first/second data processing system, server, non-transitory memory, secured connection, categorization module, priority assigner module, database, synchronization module, encrypted communication channels, encrypting/decrypting unit, virtual room, virtual lounge, virtual session object, networked session environment, system, and security module.
Claim 8, 10, recites email, text message, and voice call
Claim 18 recites method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 18 further recites processor, first/second data processing system, communication link, server, categorization module, priority assigner module, database, synchronization module, networked session environment, system, and security module.
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant’s specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0019 and 0022.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0019 and 0022. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 1-2, 7-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Platt (US20100088143A1) Discloses a system that includes a storage component configured to store scheduling constraints relating to at least one user. The system also includes a declarative calendar component configured to automatically schedule declarative calendar events for the at least one user based upon the scheduling constraints.
Brown (US20160171452A1) Discloses techniques that are described for automatically generating proposed meeting schedules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625