DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/548,573. In response to Examiner’s action mail dated April 24, 2025, Applicant submitted arguments and amendments mail dated October 24, 2025. Applicant amended claims 1-11, 13-17. Applicant added new claims 18-19. Applicant cancelled claim 12. Claims 1-11, 13-19 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not submit an information disclosure statement (IDS) for consideration by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-11, 13-19 are examined below. Claim 12 is cancelled. Claims 1-11, 13-17 are amended. Claims 18-19 are new.
Applicant’s amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The claims 1-11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101, see below.
Regarding prior art, the claims 1-11, 13-17 are amended. Claims 18-19 are new. The amendments to independent claim 1 are persuasive. Claim 1, 16 and 17 is/are allowable. The claims 2-11, 13-15, 18-19 depend on claim 1, therefore the dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons as independent claim 1. See below.
Regarding the claim interpretation. Applicant did not submit argument nor amendments in response to the claim interpretation.
Examiner acknowledges “an adjustment condition setting unit configured to…,” and “… a time/date adjustment unit configured to…” in claims 1-15 & 17 has sufficient structure within the specification [070].
Examiner acknowledges “… and adjustment condition setting step of …” and “… a time/date adjustment step of …”, are process steps as indicated in Figure 3.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 24, 2025 have been fully considered. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, the arguments are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the revised rejections. Regarding the prior art arguments, the pending claims 1-11, 13-19 are persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
On page 22 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant traverses, Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant has amended claims 1-11, 13-17. Claims 18-19 are new. Applicant submits, the authentication processing is added, and it became clear that the schedule information of the participants is retrieved in association with the user accounts of all participants to extract the first and third candidate time/dates. Claims 3-11, 13-15 are amended in view of the word consistency and for more clarification. Claims 16 and 17 and other independent claims that are amended in the same fashion as claims. Reconsideration of the rejection is respectfully requested.
The pending claims are not patent eligible. The claims recite scheduling an assembly/meeting and adjusting assembly/calendar times, and thus, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior. The claims recite additional elements that are computers conducting computer functions, like user login/authentication, displaying calendars, receiving user input, displaying schedule selection options. The claims are merely applying the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106. 05(f). The claims are not integrated into a practical application. As recited the claims do not recite an improvement at Step 2A. At Step 2B, when considered as a whole the claims do not amount to significantly more. Although the Applicant recites the computer components a significant number of times in the claims, but the integration of the components do not amount to an improvement rooted in technology. The claims are not patent eligible. See 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection below.
The Applicant is encouraged to identify additional elements that are extracting available time/dates of the participants as disclosed in the specification. The Applicant is encourage to discuss the additional element that is adjusting the schedule as disclosed in the specification.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102
On pages 22-23 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 102 arguments, the Applicant traverses the pending 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) rejection. The Applicant references instant specification [053] “third candidate time/dates” and multiple candidate scheduling proposal … The third candidate time/dates is the “updated schedule information”. Related to all the participants, which means the latest version of the scheduling information, rather than the past events. Applicant submits the prior art used for the to reject the claims is no longer reasonable due to the amendment. Reconsideration of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Applicant traverses, claims 2-11 and 13-15 are allowable at least for their dependence on Claim 1, as well as for the additional features they recite. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Applicant traverses Claims 16 and 17 are other independent claims reciting the present invention in the different categories. These claims are also amended in the same fashion as Claim 1. For the same reasons as for Claim 1, the rejection of these claims are to be withdrawn.
Regarding Claim 1, Applicant amendments to the claims are persuasive. The cited art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest,
“… A time/date adjustment apparatus that communicates via a network with a first terminal apparatus used by an adjustment initiator, a second terminal apparatus used by an adjustment partner, and an external system that stores and manages schedule information, comprising:
an authentication unit configured to perform authentication processing of the adjustment initiator with the external system by using a user account of the adjustment initiator for the external system, the user account being stored in the time/date adjustment apparatus, and to obtain user authentication information of the adjustment initiator for the external system from the external system, an adjustment condition setting unit configured to set an adjustment condition related to an assembly;
… and a time/date adjustment unit configured to adjust an assembly time/date based on the adjustment condition, wherein when the adjustment initiator logs in the time/date adjustment apparatus via the network with the first terminal apparatus using a user account
… retrieves the schedule information, which is associated with the user accounts of the participants for the external system, related to all the participants from the external system via the network wherein the schedule information retrieved in correspondence with the designation of the participants ….extracts available time/dates of the participants from the original schedule information satisfying the adjustment condition by referring to the original schedule information of the participants as first candidate time/dates in correspondence with an operation of the adjustment initiator, causes the first terminal apparatus to display a time/date editing screen for editing the extracted first candidate time/dates wherein the first candidate time/dates are displayed as time frames that are to be edited by the adjustment initiator on the time/date editing screen …
performs an access to the time/date adjustment apparatus by using based on the access information, the time/date adjustment unit accesses the external system using the user authentication information of the adjustment initiator for the external system via the network, refers to and retrieves the schedule information, which is associated with the user accounts of the participants for the external system, related to all the participants from the external system via the network wherein the schedule information retrieved in correspondence with the access by the adjustment partner, which is retrieved from the external system, is defined as updated schedule information of the participants, and extracts third candidate time/dates that are available time/dates of the participants satisfying the adjustment condition and are within a range of the second candidate time/dates registered in the storage unit by referring to the updated schedule information of the participants, causes the second terminal apparatus to display the time/date adjustment screen presenting the extracted third candidate time/dates wherein the third candidate time/dates are displayed as time frames that are to be selected by the adjustment partner, and determines the assembly time/date out of the third candidate time/dates, based on a selection operation of the adjustment partner on the time/date adjustment screen, and accesses the external system via the network using the user authentication information of the adjustment initiator, and registers the determined assembly time/date in the schedule information of the participants managed by the external system. …”,
as recited in claim and similarly claim 16 and 17. Examiner withdraws the prior art rejection under by Jon (US 2015/0,347,983 A1).
Examiner cites the references:
Mitchell (US 2020/0387923 A1) teaches A link to a URL and authentication protocols.
Ayatollahi (US 2012/0022909 A1) discloses three periods of availability are interspersed.
Moore (US 2014/0288990 A1) teaches suggestive times and authentication tokens.
Zhao (2018, Calendar Aware Proactive Email Recommendation) teaches query is formed based on what is known about the user’s current and future calendar appointments.
Singh (CN 111837149 A) teaches modifications to calendars based on pre-configured criteria or rules.
Since the specified ordered combined sequence of claim element recited in claims 1, 16 and 17, can not be found in the cited prior art and can only be found as recited in Applicant’s Specification, any combination of the cited references and/or additional reference(s) to teach all the claim elements, including features identified by Applicant that are not taught by cited art, would be impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Accordingly, any combination of Jon, Mitchell, Ayotallahi, Moore, Zhao, and Singh and/or any other additional reference(s) would be improper to teach the claimed invention.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s prior art arguments. The claims 2-11 and 13-15 are dependent on claim 1, which is allowable. Regarding prior art, the claims 18 and 19 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s prior art arguments. The claims 16 and 17 are similar to claim 1, which is allowable. Therefore, Claim 16 and Claim 17 are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1.
New Claims
On pages 22-23 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 102 arguments, the Applicant submitted new claims 18 and 19. The new claims specify the style of the time/date editing screen. Claims 18 and 19 are allowable at least for their dependence on Claim 1, as well as for the additional features they recite.
Examiner submits, the applicant instant specification does not recite “style”. Examiner acknowledges a time/date editing screen for editing as disclosed in the instant specification [046]-[047]. Examiner submits the detail of editing is absent in the claim limitations. However, the new claims are dependent on claim 1, which is allowable. Regarding prior art, the claims 18 and 19 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1.
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 1-11, 13-15, 18-19 is/are machine.
Claim 16 is/are process.
Claim 17 is/are manufacture.
Claims 1-11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims (claim 1 and similarly claims 16 and claim 17) recite, “… to perform authentication processing … by using a user account of the adjustment initiator …, the user account being stored in the time/date adjustment apparatus, and to obtain user authentication information … to set an adjustment condition …; and … to adjust an assembly time/date based on the adjustment condition, wherein when the adjustment initiator logs in … using a user account … and obtains the user authentication information … causes … to display … for setting the adjustment condition, and sets the adjustment condition including designation one or more of participants who are expected to participate in the assembly and whose schedule information is …, based on an input of the adjustment initiator on …, the time/date adjustment unit accesses …, and retrieves the schedule information, which is associated with the user accounts of the participants …, related to all the participants … wherein the schedule information retrieved in correspondence with the designation of the participants, which is retrieved …, is defined as original schedule information of the participants, and extracts available time/dates of the participants from the original schedule information satisfying the adjustment condition by referring to the original schedule information of the participants as first candidate time/dates in correspondence with an operation …, causes … to display a time/date editing … for editing the extracted first candidate time/dates wherein the first candidate time/dates are displayed as time frames that are to be edited by the adjustment initiator on the time/date editing …., and determines second candidate time/dates edited, by an edit operation of the adjustment initiator on the time/date editing screen and registers the second candidate time/dates … in correspondence with an operation of the adjustment initiator, and the time/date … issues access information for a time/date adjustment screen, when a second … used by an adjustment the adjustment partner who receives the access information, …, performs an access to the time/date … by using based on the access information, the time/date adjustment unit accesses … using the user authentication information of the adjustment initiator …, refers to and retrieves the schedule information, which is associated with the user accounts of the participants … related to all the participants … wherein the schedule information retrieved in correspondence with the access by the adjustment partner, which is retrieved …, is defined as updated schedule information of the participants, and extracts third candidate time/dates that are available time/dates of the participants satisfying the adjustment condition and are within a range of the second candidate time/dates registered … by referring to the updated schedule information of the participants, causes … to display the time/date adjustment screen presenting the extracted third candidate time/dates wherein the third candidate time/dates are displayed as time frames that are to be selected by the adjustment partner, and determines the assembly time/date out of the third candidate time/dates, based on a selection operation of the adjustment partner on the time/date adjustment screen, and accesses … using the user authentication information of the adjustment initiator, and registers the determined assembly time/date in the schedule information of the participants managed …. ”. Claims 1-11, 13-19 in view of the claims limitations, are related to the abstract idea of scheduling based on candidate timeframes and adjusting schedule for an assembly/meeting and these claims recite certain methods or organizing human activity, and thus, the claims are directed to a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is/are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, … “ A time/date adjustment apparatus that communicates via a network with a first terminal apparatus used by an adjustment initiator, a second terminal apparatus used by an adjustment partner, and an external system that stores and manages schedule information”, “ an authentication unit configured”, “for the external system from the external system, an adjustment condition setting unit configured to set an adjustment condition related to an assembly”; “a time/date adjustment unit configured”, “the time/date adjustment apparatus via the network with the first terminal apparatus”, “the authentication unit simultaneously performs the authentication processing of the adjustment initiator with the external system by using the user account of the adjustment initiator for the external system, the user account being stored in the time/date adjustment apparatus”, “the first terminal apparatus”, “a condition setting screen”, “for the external system via the network”, “screen”, “the second terminal apparatus”, in claim 1 (and similarly claim 16 which is a method and claim 17 which is A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to function as: an authentication unit ); however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. Examiner acknowledges Applicant recites the additional elements throughout the claim, however the quantities of additional elements is/are linking the judicial exception of scheduling to a particular technological environment, a computer displaying calendar times, see figure 6 of the instant application, and thus, the claims are MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more. – See MPEP 2106.05 (f).
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself.
Dependent claims 2-15, 17-18 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1.
The claims 1-11, 13-19 are not patent eligible. The claims 1-11, 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bell (US 11544800 B1) discloses the scheduling server (100) may require that each person on a thread accept the proposed time before confirming, or may immediately confirm after at least two participants have accepted, as illustrated in FIG. 2D.
Yang (2010, Multi-agent Meeting Scheduling Using Mobile Context) discloses meeting scheduling through communication between multiple software agents to negotiate and decide on the specifics of meetings.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571-270- 5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 /PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624