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 .
Acknowledgments
Claims 2, 5-6, 15, and 17-18 are cancelled.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-14, and 16 are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/7/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 11
However, the claims have now been amended to clearly describe the technical part of the invention, and said limitations no longer appear in the pending claims. As part of the amendments, independent claims 1 and 16 are rephrased to recite a distributed state-synchronization system that retrieves time-indexed availability-state records from multiple remote sources, generates a unified availability-state map, detects overlapping temporal intervals, creates server-managed pending-state records, executes synchronization logic based on agent confirmation inputs, and applies temporal, resource, and geographic constraints.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Retrieving data, generating a state-map, and analyzing data to detect overlapping intervals are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. A user is able to retrieve data, make a state map and analyze data. In addition generating records and updating entries is also seen as mere manipulation of data that does not require a computer. The distributed state-synchronization system is merely an additional element used to apply the abstract idea. 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 page 12
Even were the analysis applied to the amended claims, the present claims are directed to a specific technical architecture and concrete data-synchronization operations that improve distributed system state management and thus are not directed to a judicial exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are not solving a technical problem but a business problem. The business problem of scheduling as seen in para 0002-0005 of Applicant’s Specification. The claims are merely improving the business process of scheduling and managing appointments. In contrast, a technical problem and improvement 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
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, 3-4, 7-14, and 16 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 (MPEP 2106.03), claims 1, 3-4, 7-14, and 16 are directed to a system and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1, 3-4, 7-14, and 16 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 16 recite the limitations of
…retrieve…a first time-indexed availability state record associated with the first agent and a second time-indexed availability-state record associated with the second agent…generate…a consolidated availability-state map by merging the first time-indexed availability state record and the second time-indexed availability state record into a unified data structure that represents a distributed operational availability status of both the first agent processing system and the second agent processing system; transmit…a representation of the consolidated availability state map for display…receive…an interaction request initiating a state-synchronization session…receive, during the state-synchronization session, a selection input…either a first time-indexed availability state entry associated with the first agent processing system or a second time-indexed availability state entry associated with the second agent processing system, each availability state entry corresponding to a respective temporal interval represented within the consolidated availability state map…determine, by comparing time indices associated with the first and second time- indexed availability-state entries, that at least one temporal interval of the first entry overlaps a temporal interval of the second entry; transmit…in response to detecting the overlapping intervals, a notification…indicating receipt of the received selection input corresponding to the overlapping intervals; and initiate, based on the detected overlap, a synchronization operation by: generating a pending-state record and adding the pending-state record to a…queue associated with the selected availability-state entries…notifying…of the pending-state record… receiving…a confirmation input acknowledging the pending-state record…removing the pending-state record from the waiting queue, upon receiving the confirmation input; and updating, within the consolidated availability state map, the corresponding agent's availability-state entry from a first state value to a modified state value selected from a set comprising Away, Busy, Do Not Disturb or Offline, wherein the server is further configured to…retrieve and update the consolidated availability state map at predefined intervals and in response to agent or user inputs, thereby maintaining synchronized and current availability information…
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of retrieving, receiving, generating, transmitting, adding, removing, determining, and updating 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 processing system, the claim language encompasses simply retrieving records to generate an availability state map. Additional steps include transmitting the state map for display as well as receiving a request and an input. The claims further state determining overlaps in temporal intervals and transmitting notifications with respect to the overlaps. The claims further state initiating a synchronization operation that includes further abstract idea steps such as generating records as well as adding and removing them based on receiving information. The claims also state abstract idea steps such as updating the state map. These are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. The claims deals with scheduling which is not a novel concept and has been done before the technological age. Given a real-world example, a person in charge of scheduling is able to schedule first and second agents for a meeting as seen in figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings. This can be done by the scheduling person seeing what time blocks both agents are available.
The claims recite making an availability state map with respect to a company that employs agents (See para 0086 in Specification). The drawings also show interactions between agents as seen in figure 1. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (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 distributed state-synchronization system, processor, server managed waiting queue, non-transitory memory, remote data sources, processing system, system, database, and server.
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 additional steps such as receiving a third input with respect to a confirmation. In addition, the dependent claims further describe additional steps such as sending notifications to the first and second agent.
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
distributed state-synchronization system, server, processing system, non-transitory memory, remote data sources, and processor
Claim 16 recites method, however method is not considered an additional element.
Claim 16 further recites distributed state-synchronization system, processor, non-transitory memory, processing system, and server
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0023-0025.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0023-0025. 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, 3-4, 7-14, and 16 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.
Hill (US 20100211424) Discloses a method and system for scheduling a meeting between a schedule entity and a plurality of booking entities over a communications network.
Chandrakant (10728392) Discloses a computerized method for managing availability states of a user to communicate over multiple communication platforms may include a processor of a computerized system communicating with at least two communication platforms.
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
Prosecution Insights