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, 8-10, 15, and 17-18 are cancelled.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 11-14, and 16 are pending.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 4/1/2026.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 4/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 11
The Examiner's comparison of the claimed system to a mental process that can be performed with pen and paper is flawed. The claims are not simply an automation of a human scheduling task. A human scheduler cannot, in their mind or on paper, operate a security module that authenticates every participant's identity at the cryptographic level before permitting any network communication to begin.
Examiner respectfully disagrees
Examiner has interpreted the security module as an additional element. Additional elements are not analyzed under Step 2A prong 1. The security module is merely invoked as a tool to implement instructions of the abstract idea and it merely limits the abstract idea in a field of use/particular technology which does not provide practical application/significantly more to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Applicant argues on page 12
Nor can a human encrypt a structured data object using a dedicated encrypting/ decrypting unit, transmit it securely across a network, and have it independently decrypted by a dedicated encryptor decryptor at the receiving node. These are not mental steps or pen-and-paper operations. They are inherently machine-based operations that require specific computational hardware and software components operating in a coordinated fashion across a distributed network.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner has interpreted the encrypting/ decrypting unit as an additional element. Additional elements are not analyzed under Step 2A prong 1. The encrypting/ decrypting unit is merely invoked as a tool to implement instructions of the abstract idea and it merely limits the abstract idea in a field of use/particular technology which does not provide practical application/significantly more to the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Applicant argues on page 13-15, that the claimed invention a technical improvement, the Applicant states
The claimed invention here, through its use of these specific structural
components and the specific technical protocols they implement, improves the relevant technology of distributed state management by providing a secure, authenticated, and conflict resolved architecture for synchronizing availability-state data across networked processing systems. This is not a mere automation of a pre-existing human process; it is a specific technical solution to problems, race conditions, unauthorized access, and data interception, that specifically arise in distributed computing environments and have no analogue in manual human scheduling
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 addition, Applicant recites state management which is just managing a meeting/schedule. 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.
Applicant argues on page 15-16
The specification describes this specialized architecture in detail in Figures 2, 3, and 4 and the corresponding paragraphs of the description. The particular machine defined by these specific structural components is what makes the claimed technical operations possible, and it is a machine that is specifically configured for secure, authenticated, conflict-resolved distributed state synchronization rather than a general-purpose computer performing routine data processing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. In addition, Applicant’s specification states general purpose computer configurations as seen in para 0023-0025 which is not the same as a particular machine. General purpose computer components that apply a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.
Applicant argues on page 16
The concurrent-access conflict resolution mechanism recited in the amended claims is not a well-understood, routine, or conventional feature of prior calendar or scheduling systems. The claims require the server to simultaneously present a server-managed waiting queue to both agent processing systems such that both have concurrent visibility into the same pending state record, while monitoring for the first-received confirmation input and discarding any subsequently received confirmation input for the same record. This first-to-confirm protocol, combined with simultaneous bilateral queue visibility, is a specific and unconventional architectural design that addresses the race condition problem unique to distributed multi-node environments.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner did not used the language well understood, routine, or conventional when rejecting the claims under 35 USC 101 from the 8/4/2023 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.” In addition, the conflict resolution mechanism is merely keeping a record of monitoring data and displaying that data to the user. The steps of monitoring data and keeping a record such as a queue are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity which include electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining “shadow accounts”); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log).
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, 11-14, 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, 11-14, and 16 are directed to a system and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 11-14, and 16 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 16 recite the limitations of
…retrieve…a first time 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; identify…as a target for transmission of the consolidated availability-state map…
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 concurrent-access conflict resolution:
generating a pending-state record and adding the pending-state record to a…queue…present…monitoring
…removing the pending-state record from the waiting queue, upon receiving the first-received confirmation input; and updating, within the consolidated availability state map, the 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…
Transmit…a synchronization-completion notification upon updating the availability-state entry in the consolidated availability-state map, and thereafter transmit one or more reminder notifications…prior to commencement of the temporal interval associated with the updated availability-state entry; and receive… a cancellation input associated with a previously confirmed pending-state record; upon receiving the cancellation input, reassign the pending-state record to the waiting queue and updating the consolidated availability-state map; and transmit an updated notification to the first user processing system reflecting the reassignment
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, presenting, monitoring, transmitting, adding, removing, determining, transmitting, identifying, reassigning, 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 conflict resolution 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. The claims further include monitoring data and presenting data based on the monitoring. 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 scheduling person can also present this data to users.
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, routing unit, non-transitory memory, remote data sources, processing system, system, network, database, communication module, security module, encryptor-decryptor, and server. The additional element of encryptor-decryptor includes additional limitations such as encrypt outgoing data transmitted from the first agent processing system and decrypt incoming data received by the first agent processing system… to encrypt outgoing data transmitted from the second agent processing system and decrypt incoming data received by the second agent processing system…
The additional element of security module includes the limitations of authenticate, via the security module, each of the first agent, the second agent, and the first user prior to establishing network communication with the respective agent processing systems and the first user processing system, wherein the security module is configured to verify the identity of each agent and user associated with each respective processing system before permitting any data exchange over the network;
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 or 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, network, encyptor/decryptor, routing unit, security module, communication module, 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, encyptor/decryptor, routing unit, security module, communication module, 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, 11-14, 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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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/
Prosecution Insights