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 .
Response to Amendment/Response to Office Action
The amendment/response to office action filed March 30, 2026 has been entered. On December 1, 2025, in response to the restriction requirement, Applicant provisionally elected Group I, which includes claims: 1-6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15(completely); and 7, and 13(partially). Thereafter, Applicant withdrew claims 9-10. Claims 1-8 and 12-14 have been amended. Claims 11 and 15 have been canceled. Examiner withdraws objections to claims 1-4, 6-8, and 12-13. Claims 1-8 and 12-14 remain pending in the application.
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.
Step 1: Does the claimed invention fall inside one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)? Yes for claims 1-8 and 12-14. Claims 1-8 and 12 are drawn to a method for user availability estimation (i.e., a process). Claim 13 is drawn to a medium for user availability estimation (i.e., a manufacture). Claim 14 is drawn to a system for user availability estimation (i.e., a manufacture).
Step 2A - Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes, for claims 1-8 and 12-14.
Claim 1 recites:
A method of user availability estimation, comprising: recording, by a computing device, and for each first user session of a plurality of first user sessions during which a first user performs one or more tasks of a predetermined type on the computing device, a respective end time of the first user session, a respective duration of the first user session, or both;
detecting, by the computing device, that a subsequent session has been started by the first user at a start time;
estimating, by the computing device, and in response to detecting that the subsequent session has been started, a predicted duration of the subsequent session based on the recorded respective end times of the plurality of first user sessions, the recorded respective durations of the plurality of first user sessions, or both, and the start time of the subsequent session;
generating, by the computing device, an order for one or more tasks of a plurality of candidate tasks of the predetermined type for completion by the first user within the predicted duration of the subsequent session, wherein the order is generated based on expected durations associated with each of the plurality of candidate tasks such that the order minimizes an unused portion of the predicted duration remaining after completion of the one or more tasks when the first user completes the one or more tasks according to the order;
and automatically downloading, by the computing device, data associated with the one or more tasks according to the generated order from a remote server.
These steps amount to a form of mental process and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea) because a human can record user sessions, document the start of a subsequent user session, estimate a duration for subsequent sessions based on the previous session, and then request task completion within the duration of the subsequent session. Applicant of claimed invention discloses “Users of computers typically have a list of tasks that they want to complete, and typically an anticipated period of time in which to complete at least some of such tasks.” [0002].
Independent claims 13 and 14 describe nearly identical steps as claim 1 (and therefore recite limitations that fall within this subject matter of grouping abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Dependent claims 2-8 and 12 are directed towards mini-tasks (calculating an average of the times for initial recorded sessions, calculating a variance and standard deviation of the times for initial recorded sessions, and estimating predicted duration for subsequent sessions based on initial recorded sessions and variables that include day and week, etc.) for a user availability estimation method, medium, and system. Each claim amounts to a form of collecting, generating, and analyzing information, and therefore falls within the scope of a method for organizing human activity, (i.e., an abstract idea). As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 2-8 and 12 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception? No
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using computing devices (independent claims 1, 13, and 14 and dependent claims 2-8 and 12) is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of a computing device, storage medium, memory, and a processor (independent claims 1, 13, and 14 and dependent claims 2-8 and 12) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Use of a computer, processor, memory or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, they serve to limit the application of the abstract idea to a computerized environment (e.g., identifying and displaying, etc.) performed by a computing device, processor, and memory, etc. This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined “an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer”). These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-8 and 12 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective independent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim). The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? i.e., Are there any additional elements (features/limitations/step) recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea? No
In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an “inventive concept.” An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong Two”, the identified additional elements in independent claims 1, 13, and 14 and dependent claims 2-8 and 12 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 12 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e. they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Therefore, claims 1-8 and 12-14 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable under US 20200406140 A1 (“Sundareson”) in view of US 20090281785 A1 (“Ressler”).
In regards to claim 1, Sundareson discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitation.
A method of user availability estimation, comprising: recording, by a computing device ([0029], “application … may be … a computer application … the … application … may transmit … recordings”), and for each first user session of a plurality of first user sessions during which a first user performs one or more tasks of a predetermined type on the computing device, a respective end time of the first user session, a respective duration of the first user session, or both ([0065], “the graphical user interface … may initiate functions and operations to enable the user to perform various tasks relating to an identified duration”);
detecting, by the computing device, that a subsequent session has been started by the first user at a start time ([0119], “the computing device … may … enable detection of motion”);
estimating, by the computing device, and in response to detecting that the subsequent session has been started, a predicted duration of the subsequent session based on the recorded respective end times of the plurality of first user sessions, the recorded respective durations of the plurality of first user sessions, or both, and the start time of the subsequent session ([0019], “user inputs may be … used to generate (e.g., periodically during … the gameplay session) a running user activity measurement … collected over a period of time of a gameplay session” Examiner notes that the collected user activity measurement data may be used to estimate or predict durations of subsequent sessions.);
generating, by the computing device, an order for one or more tasks of a plurality of candidate tasks of the predetermined type for completion by the first user within the predicted duration of the subsequent session ([0065], “the graphical user interface … may initiate functions and operations to enable the user to perform various tasks relating to an identified duration”), wherein the order is generated based on expected durations associated with each of the plurality of candidate tasks ([0081], “operations … enable the action manager … to perform various tasks relating to an identified duration”) such that the order minimizes an unused portion of the predicted duration remaining after completion of the one or more tasks when the first user completes the one or more tasks according to the order ([0051], “the duration determiner … can compare the duration to a … minimum … length duration … to determine whether to discard the duration … for additional analysis by, for example, the interest determiner”);
and automatically downloading, by the computing device, data associated with the one or more tasks according to the generated order from a remote server ([0030], “The … application … and … updates to the … application … may be downloaded from the … server”).
Ressler discloses
generating, by the computing device, an order ([0016], “the operator terminal ... includes the necessary components for communicating with the ... computer system ... which controls the ... environment by giving orders to the operators through voice, receiving the spoken responses and feedback from the operators, collecting all the gathered data, and ... facilitating the ... tasks being performed by all the various ... operators”).
Sundareson and Ressler combined are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of gameplay sessions and speech-driven environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a method of user availability estimation, comprising: recording, by a computing device, and for each first user session of a plurality of first user sessions during which a first user performs one or more tasks of a predetermined type on the computing device, a respective end time of the first user session, a respective duration of the first user session, or both; detecting, by the computing device, that a subsequent session has been started by the first user at a start time; estimating, by the computing device, and in response to detecting that the subsequent session has been started, a predicted duration of the subsequent session based on the recorded respective end times of the plurality of first user sessions, the recorded respective durations of the plurality of first user sessions, or both, and the start time of the subsequent session; for one or more tasks of a plurality of candidate tasks of the predetermined type for completion by the first user within the predicted duration of the subsequent session, wherein the order is generated based on expected durations associated with each of the plurality of candidate tasks such that the order minimizes an unused portion of the predicted duration remaining after completion of the one or more tasks when the first user completes the one or more tasks according to the order;
and automatically downloading, by the computing device, data associated with the one or more tasks according to the generated order from a remote server, as disclosed by Sundareson, generating, by the computing device, an order, as disclosed by Ressler, to provide operator terminal, computer systems, and tasks for a system used in supervising an operator in a speech-driven environment. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of operator terminal, computer systems, and tasks for a system used in supervising an operator in a speech-driven environment.
In regards to claim 2, Sundareson discloses
in which estimating the predicted duration ([0019], “user inputs may be … used to generate … a running user activity measurement … collected over a period of time” Examiner notes that the collected user activity measurement data may be used to estimate or predict durations of subsequent sessions.) comprises calculating an average of the recorded ([0029], “the … application … may transmit … recordings”) respective end times of the plurality of first user sessions, or both, the recorded respective durations of the plurality of first user sessions, the predicted duration being based upon the average ([0020], “the statistic may correspond to an average … of the user activity measurement over the gameplay session(s)”).
In regards to claim 3, Sundareson discloses
in which estimating the predicted duration ([0019], “user inputs may be … used to generate … a running user activity measurement … collected over a period of time” Examiner notes that the collected user activity measurement data may be used to estimate or predict durations of subsequent sessions.) of the subsequent session comprises calculating a variance or standard deviation of the recorded ([0029], “the … application … may transmit … recordings”) respective end times of the plurality of first user sessions, the recorded respective durations of the plurality of first user sessions, or both, the predicted duration being based upon the average and the variance or standard deviation ([0063], “the statistical value may correspond to a Median Absolute Deviation … score that is computed from the user interest scores … other statistics may be used, such as a standard deviation, an average, etc.”).
In regards to claim 4, Sundareson discloses
wherein recording ([0029], “the … application … may transmit … recordings”) the respective end times, the respective durations, or both for the plurality of first user sessions and estimating the predicted duration ([0019], “user inputs may be … used to generate … a running user activity measurement … collected over a period of time” Examiner notes that the collected user activity measurement data may be used to estimate predicted durations of subsequent sessions.) of the subsequent session are with respect to one or more of: i. a predetermined part of the day ([0044], “user activity measurement may be a running user activity measurement having values computed periodically (e.g., every second) or iteratively and/or may be computed as needed” Examiner notes that the user activity measurement values “may be computed as needed” implies that a predetermined part of the day is an option.);
and ii. one or more days of the week ([0044], “user activity measurement may be a running user activity measurement having values computed periodically (e.g., every second) or iteratively and/or may be computed as needed” Examiner notes that the user activity measurement values “may be computed as needed” implies that one or more days of the week is an option.).
In regards to claim 5, Sundareson discloses
in which the recording ([0029], “the … application … may transmit … recordings”) comprises recording both the respective end time of the first user session and the respective duration of the first user session for each first user session of the plurality of first user sessions ([0019], “user inputs may be … used to generate … a running user activity measurement … collected over a period of time”).
In regards to claim 6, Sundareson discloses
wherein the estimating comprises: estimating a predicted end time of the subsequent session based on the recorded ([0029], “the … application … may transmit … recordings”) respective end times when the variance or standard deviation of the recorded respective end times of the plurality of first user sessions is below a predetermined threshold ([0020], “an end of the duration may correspond to a time at which the user activity measurement is less than the threshold value”); and determining the predicted duration of the subsequent session based on the start time and the predicted end time ([0019], “user inputs may be … used to generate … a running user activity measurement … collected over a period of time” Examiner notes that the collected user activity measurement data may be used to determine predicted durations of subsequent sessions.).
In regards to claim 7, Sundareson discloses
in which the tasks are part of a videogame ([0019], “a user … plays a game”), and estimating the predicted duration of the subsequent session ([0019], “user inputs may be … used to generate … a running user activity measurement … collected over a period of time” Examiner notes that the collected user activity measurement data may be used to estimate predicted durations of subsequent sessions.) of the first user is further based upon one or more game factors including one or more of: i. the type of game ([0012], “FIG. 4 is … a method for … a gameplay session” Examiner notes that gameplay inherently defines the type of game.);
ii. the mode in which the game is played ([0012], “FIG. 4 is … a method for … a gameplay session” Examiner notes that gameplay modes may be single player or multiplayer.);
and iii. the type of display the game is output upon ([0033], “The display … may include any type of display capable of displaying a game (e.g., a light-emitting diode display (LED), an organic LED display (OLED), a liquid crystal display (LCD), an active matrix OLED display (AMOLED), a quantum dot display (QDD), a plasma display, an LED/LCD display, and/or another type of display”).
In regards to claim 12, Sundareson discloses the following limitation with the exception of the underlined limitation.
in which generating the order is further based upon the variance or standard deviation in the expected durations associated with each of the plurality of candidate tasks ([0063], “the statistical value may correspond to a Median Absolute Deviation … score that is computed from the user interest scores … other statistics may be used, such as a standard deviation”).
Ressler discloses
generating the order ([0016], “the operator terminal ... includes the necessary components for communicating with the ... computer system ... which controls the ... environment by giving orders to the operators through voice, receiving the spoken responses and feedback from the operators, collecting all the gathered data, and ... facilitating the ... tasks being performed by all the various ... operators”).
Sundareson and Ressler combined are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of gameplay sessions and speech-driven environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a method of user availability estimation, comprising: recording, by a computing device, and for each first user session of a plurality of first user sessions during which a first user performs one or more tasks of a predetermined type on the computing device, a respective end time of the first user session, a respective duration of the first user session, or both; detecting, by the computing device, that a subsequent session has been started by the first user at a start time; estimating, by the computing device, and in response to detecting that the subsequent session has been started, a predicted duration of the subsequent session based on the recorded respective end times of the plurality of first user sessions, the recorded respective durations of the plurality of first user sessions, or both, and the start time of the subsequent session; for one or more tasks of a plurality of candidate tasks of the predetermined type for completion by the first user within the predicted duration of the subsequent session, wherein the order is generated based on expected durations associated with each of the plurality of candidate tasks such that the order minimizes an unused portion of the predicted duration remaining after completion of the one or more tasks when the first user completes the one or more tasks according to the order;
and automatically downloading, by the computing device, data associated with the one or more tasks according to the generated order from a remote server, as disclosed by Sundareson, generating, by the computing device, an order, as disclosed by Ressler, to provide operator terminal, computer systems, and tasks for a system used in supervising an operator in a speech-driven environment. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of operator terminal, computer systems, and tasks for a system used in supervising an operator in a speech-driven environment.
In regards to claim 13, Sundareson discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitation.
A non-transitory, computer readable storage medium containing a computer program comprising computer executable instructions adapted to cause a computer system to perform a method of user availability estimation, comprising ([0029], “The … application … may include instructions that, when executed …, cause the processor(s) to … receive input data …, transmit the input data to the … server …, retrieve game data from memory or local storage”): recording ([0029], “application … may be … a computer application … the … application … may transmit … recordings”), for each first user session of a plurality of first user sessions during which a first user performs one or more tasks of a predetermined type on the computer system, a respective end time of the first user session, a respective duration of the first user session, or both ([0065], “the graphical user interface … may initiate functions and operations to enable the user to perform various tasks relating to an identified duration”);
detecting that a subsequent session has been started by the first user at a start time ([0119], “the computing device … may … enable detection of motion”);
estimating, in response to detecting that the subsequent session has been started, a predicted duration of the subsequent session based on the recorded respective end times of the plurality of first user sessions, the recorded respective durations of the plurality of first user sessions, or both, and the start time of the subsequent session ([0019], “user inputs may be … used to generate (e.g., periodically during … the gameplay session) a running user activity measurement … collected over a period of time of a gameplay session” Examiner notes that the collected user activity measurement data may be used to estimate or predict durations of subsequent sessions.);
and generating an order for one or more tasks of a plurality of candidate tasks of the predetermined type for completion by the first user within the predicted duration of the subsequent session ([0065], “the graphical user interface … may initiate functions and operations to enable the user to perform various tasks relating to an identified duration”), wherein the order is generated based on expected durations associated with each of the plurality of candidate tasks ([0081], “operations … enable the action manager … to perform various tasks relating to an identified duration”) such that the order minimizes an unused portion of the predicted duration remaining after completion of the one or more tasks when the first user completes the one or more tasks according to the order ([0051], “the duration determiner … can compare the duration to a … minimum … length duration … to determine whether to discard the duration … for additional analysis by, for example, the interest determiner”);
and automatically downloading data associated with the one or more tasks according to the generated order from a remote server ([0030], “The … application … and … updates to the … application … may be downloaded from the … server”).
Ressler discloses
and generating an order ([0016], “the operator terminal ... includes the necessary components for communicating with the ... computer system ... which controls the ... environment by giving orders to the operators through voice, receiving the spoken responses and feedback from the operators, collecting all the gathered data, and ... facilitating the ... tasks being performed by all the various ... operators”).
Sundareson and Ressler combined are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of gameplay sessions and speech-driven environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a non-transitory, computer readable storage medium containing a computer program comprising computer executable instructions adapted to cause a computer system to perform a method of user availability estimation, comprising: recording, for each first user session of a plurality of first user sessions during which a first user performs one or more tasks of a predetermined type on the computer system, a respective end time of the first user session, a respective duration of the first user session, or both; detecting that a subsequent session has been started by the first user at a start time; estimating, in response to detecting that the subsequent session has been started, a predicted duration of the subsequent session based on the recorded respective end times of the plurality of first user sessions, the recorded respective durations of the plurality of first user sessions, or both, and the start time of the subsequent session; for one or more tasks of a plurality of candidate tasks of the predetermined type for completion by the first user within the predicted duration of the subsequent session, wherein the order is generated based on expected durations associated with each of the plurality of candidate tasks such that the order minimizes an unused portion of the predicted duration remaining after completion of the one or more tasks when the first user completes the one or more tasks according to the order; and automatically downloading data associated with the one or more tasks according to the generated order from a remote server, as disclosed by Sundareson, and generating an order, as disclosed by Ressler, to provide an operator terminal, computer systems, and tasks for a system used in supervising an operator in a speech-driven environment. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of an operator terminal, computer systems, and tasks for a system used in supervising an operator in a speech-driven environment.
In regards to claim 14, Sundareson discloses the following limitations with the exception of the underlined limitation.
A user availability estimation system, comprising: one or more processors ([0024], “various functions may be carried out by a processor”);
and a memory storing instructions ([0024], “various functions may be … stored in memory.”) which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: recording ([0029], “application … may be … a computer application … the … application … may transmit … recordings”) for each first user session of a plurality of first user sessions during which a first user performs one or more tasks of a predetermined type, a respective end time of the first user session, a respective duration of the first user session, or both ([0065], “the graphical user interface … may initiate functions and operations to enable the user to perform various tasks relating to an identified duration”);
detecting that a subsequent session has been started by the first user at a start time ([0119], “the computing device … may … enable detection of motion”);
estimating, in response to detecting that the subsequent session has been started, a predicted duration of the subsequent session based on the recorded respective end times of the plurality of first user sessions, the recorded respective durations of the plurality of first user sessions, or both, and the start time of the subsequent session ([0019], “user inputs may be … used to generate (e.g., periodically during … the gameplay session) a running user activity measurement … collected over a period of time of a gameplay session” Examiner notes that the collected user activity measurement data may be used to estimate or predict durations of subsequent sessions.);
generating an order for one or more tasks of a plurality of candidate tasks of the predetermined type for completion by the first user within the predicted duration of the subsequent session ([0065], “the graphical user interface … may initiate functions and operations to enable the user to perform various tasks relating to an identified duration”), wherein the order is generated based on expected durations associated with each of the plurality of candidate tasks ([0081], “operations … enable the action manager … to perform various tasks relating to an identified duration”) such that the order minimizes an unused portion of the predicted duration remaining after completion of the one or more tasks when the first user completes the one or more tasks according to the order ([0051], “the duration determiner … can compare the duration to a … minimum … length duration … to determine whether to discard the duration … for additional analysis by, for example, the interest determiner”);
and automatically downloading data associated with the one or more tasks according to the generated order from a remote server ([0030], “The … application … and … updates to the … application … may be downloaded from the … server”).
Ressler discloses
generating an order ([0016], “the operator terminal ... includes the necessary components for communicating with the ... computer system ... which controls the ... environment by giving orders to the operators through voice, receiving the spoken responses and feedback from the operators, collecting all the gathered data, and ... facilitating the ... tasks being performed by all the various ... operators”).
Sundareson and Ressler combined are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of gameplay sessions and speech-driven environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a user availability estimation system, comprising: one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: recording for each first user session of a plurality of first user sessions during which a first user performs one or more tasks of a predetermined type, a respective end time of the first user session, a respective duration of the first user session, or both; detecting that a subsequent session has been started by the first user at a start time; estimating, in response to detecting that the subsequent session has been started, a predicted duration of the subsequent session based on the recorded respective end times of the plurality of first user sessions, the recorded respective durations of the plurality of first user sessions, or both, and the start time of the subsequent session; generating an order for one or more tasks of a plurality of candidate tasks of the predetermined type for completion by the first user within the predicted duration of the subsequent session, wherein the order is generated based on expected durations associated with each of the plurality of candidate tasks such that the order minimizes an unused portion of the predicted duration remaining after completion of the one or more tasks when the first user completes the one or more tasks according to the order; and automatically downloading data associated with the one or more tasks according to the generated order from a remote server, as disclosed by Sundareson, generating an order, as disclosed by Ressler, to provide an operator terminal, computer systems, and tasks for a system used in supervising an operator in a speech-driven environment. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of an operator terminal, computer systems, and tasks for a system used in supervising an operator in a speech-driven environment.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundareson in view of Ressler and US 20190180218 A1 (“Vigneswaran”).
In regards to claim 8, Sundareson discloses the following limitation with the exception of the underlined limitation.
in which estimating the predicted duration of the subsequent session ([0065], “the graphical user interface … may initiate functions and operations to enable the user to perform various tasks relating to an identified duration”) of the first user is further based upon one or more user factors including one or more of: i. one or more aspects of the demographics of the user;
and ii. one or more aspects of the demographics of one or more other task participants.
Vigneswaran discloses
in which estimating of the subsequent session of the first user is further based upon one or more user factors including one or more of: i. one or more aspects of the demographics of the user ([0089], “the user data may include demographic data such as the user's age, sex, general geographic region etc.”);
and ii. one or more aspects of the demographics of one or more other task participants ([0089], “the user data may include demographic data such as the user's age, sex, general geographic region etc.”).
Sundareson and Vigneswaran combined are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of gameplay sessions and scheduling tasks for multiple users. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention for a method of user availability estimation, comprising: recording a timing of a plurality of first user sessions during in which the first user performs one or more tasks of a predetermined type; estimating a timing of a subsequent session of the first user based upon the recorded timings of the plurality of first user sessions; and for the subsequent session of the first user, ordering for completion by the first user one or more tasks of the predetermined type, having respective durations, that fit within the estimated timing of the subsequent session, the predicted duration of the subsequent session, as disclosed by Sundareson, in which estimating a timing of a subsequent session of the first user is further based upon one or more user factors including one or more of: i. one or more aspects of the demographics of the user; and ii. one or more aspects of the demographics of one or more other task participants, as disclosed by Vigneswaran, to provide user demographic data for systems and methods that automatically schedule tasks for multiple users. One skilled in the art would understand and recognize the value of the addition of user demographic data for systems and methods that automatically schedule tasks for multiple users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 have been fully considered but after Examiner’s further search, the prior art disclosed the amended subject matter. Applicant amended claims 1-8 and 12-14. Claims 1-8 and 12-14 are pending in this application.
With respect to amended claim 1, Applicant argues “amended, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, mental process, or other judicial exception” (See AMENDMENT/RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION, REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101, page 8, paragraph 2.) Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Regarding claim 1, as demonstrated in step 2A - prong one of the Alice/Mayo test, the idea of recording, by a computing device, and for each first user session of a plurality of first user sessions during which a first user performs one or more tasks of a predetermined type on the computing device, a respective end time of the first user session, a respective duration of the first user session, or both; detecting, by the computing device, that a subsequent session has been started by the first user at a start time; estimating, by the computing device, and in response to detecting that the subsequent session has been started, a predicted duration of the subsequent session based on the recorded respective end times of the plurality of first user sessions, the recorded respective durations of the plurality of first user sessions, or both, and the start time of the subsequent session; generating, by the computing device, an order for one or more tasks of a plurality of candidate tasks of the predetermined type for completion by the first user within the predicted duration of the subsequent session, wherein the order is generated based on expected durations associated with each of the plurality of candidate tasks such that the order minimizes an unused portion of the predicted duration remaining after completion of the one or more tasks when the first user completes the one or more tasks according to the order; and automatically downloading, by the computing device, data associated with the one or more tasks according to the generated order from a remote server recites a judicial exception and amounts to a form of mental process, mathematical computations, and organizing human activity (i.e., an abstract idea). The Supreme Court has explained that the judicial exceptions reflect the Court’s view that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are “the basic tools of scientific and technological work”, and are thus excluded from patentability because “monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it”. Alice Corp.,573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). In addition, the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson “held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle”.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, the mathematical formula in Flook, the laws of nature in Mayo, and the isolated DNA in Myriad were all novel or newly discovered, but nonetheless were considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were “‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection.” Myriad, 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1976, 1978 (noting that Myriad discovered the BRCA1 and BRCA1 genes and quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 (“the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”); Mayo, 566 U.S. 73-74, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (noting that the claims embody the researcher's discoveries of laws of nature). The Supreme Court’s cited rationale for considering even “just discovered” judicial exceptions as exceptions stems from the concern that “without this exception, there would be considerable danger that the grant of patents would ‘tie up’ the use of such tools and thereby ‘inhibit future innovation premised upon them.’” Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978-79 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 86, 101 USPQ2d at 1971). Claims 1, 13, and 14 and dependent claims 2-8 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the 101 rejection is maintained.
With respect to amended claim 1, Applicant argues “none of the references, alone or in combination, teach or disclose at least the above quoted features of amended claim 1” (See AMENDMENT/RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION, REMARKS/ARGUMENTS, Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, page 12, paragraph 3.) Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s remarks. Regarding claim 1, Sundareson discloses a method of user availability estimation, comprising: recording, by a computing device ([0029], “application … may be … a computer application … the … application … may transmit … recordings”), and for each first user session of a plurality of first user sessions during which a first user performs one or more tasks of a predetermined type on the computing device, a respective end time of the first user session, a respective duration of the first user session, or both ([0065], “the graphical user interface … may initiate functions and operations to enable the user to perform various tasks relating to an identified duration”); detecting, by the computing device, that a subsequent session has been started by the first user at a start time ([0119], “the computing device … may … enable detection of motion”); estimating, by the computing device, and in response to detecting that the subsequent session has been started, a predicted duration of the subsequent session based on the recorded respective end times of the plurality of first user sessions, the recorded respective durations of the plurality of first user sessions, or both, and the start time of the subsequent session ([0019], “user inputs may be … used to generate (e.g., periodically during … the gameplay session) a running user activity measurement … collected over a period of time of a gameplay session” Examiner notes that the collected user activity measurement data may be used to estimate or predict durations of subsequent sessions.); for one or more tasks of a plurality of candidate tasks of the predetermined type for completion by the first user within the predicted duration of the subsequent session ([0065], “the graphical user interface … may initiate functions and operations to enable the user to perform various tasks relating to an identified duration”), wherein the order is generated based on expected durations associated with each of the plurality of candidate tasks ([0081], “operations … enable the action manager … to perform various tasks relating to an identified duration”) such that the order minimizes an unused portion of the predicted duration remaining after completion of the one or more tasks when the first user completes the one or more tasks according to the order ([0051], “the duration determiner … can compare the duration to a … minimum … length duration … to determine whether to discard the duration … for additional analysis by, for example, the interest determiner”); and automatically downloading, by the computing device, data associated with the one or more tasks according to the generated order from a remote server ([0030], “The … application … and … updates to the … application … may be downloaded from the … server”) and Ressler discloses generating, by the computing device, an order ([0016], “the operator terminal ... includes the necessary components for communicating with the ... computer system ... which controls the ... environment by giving orders to the operators through voice, receiving the spoken responses and feedback from the operators, collecting all the gathered data, and ... facilitating the ... tasks being performed by all the various ... operators”).
MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation (“BRI”) in light of the specification during
examination. Under BRI, the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless
such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim
limitations from the specification into the claim. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the BRI is broader than what is argued. Independent claims 13 and 14 are almost identical to independent claim 1. Therefore, the rejections of amended independent claims 1, 13, and 14, as obvious over Sundareson in view of Ressler are maintained. Consequently, the rejections of dependent claims 2-8 are maintained.
Conclusion
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 Lisa Antoine whose telephone number is (571)272-4252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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. 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.
LISA H ANTOINE
Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights