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 February 04, 2026, Applicant submitted arguments and amendments that are mail dated April 20, 2026. Applicant amended claims 1,4,5,6,7,14,15,16, and 17. Applicant cancelled claims 12, 13, 18, and 19. Claims 1-11, 14-15, & 17 are pending under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 20, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not submit an information disclosure statement (IDS) for consideration by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant amended claims 1,4,5,6,7,14,15,16,and 17. Applicant cancelled claims 12, 13, 18, and 19. Claims 1-11, 14-15, & 17 are pending.
Applicant’s amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. The claims 1-11, 14-15, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101, 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 April 20, 2026 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.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
On pages 21-24 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant traverses, Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Applicant has amended claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, and 17. Claims 1-11, 14-15, & 17 are pending.
Applicant submits, the claims are amended to include additional elements for extracting available time/dates and are not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant submits claims 1 (and similarly claims 16 and 17) recites a specific and structured sequence of processing steps that define how candidate time/dates are generated, edited, and determined. Applicant submits the claimed process is not merely a mental process or a method of organizing human activity. For example, the identification of available time/dates based on multiple conditions, including the absence of existing plans and the securing of a required assembly time, requires systematic processing of schedule data that cannot be practically performed in the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper.
Applicant further traverses, claim 1 recites specific user interface processing, including displaying candidate time frames on a time/date editing screen and determining edited results based on user operations. This interaction between the processing unit and the terminal apparatus constitutes a practical application that integrates the claimed processing into a user interface. Accordingly, Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A.
Regarding Step 2B, Applicant traverses the claim includes significantly more. Applicant submits, claim 1 recites a specific combination of data processing steps and user interface operations that are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. The specification supports this point (see, e.g., paragraphs [0080]-[0085] and Figs. 6 and 7).
Applicant submits, the claimed processing improves the efficiency and accuracy of schedule coordinate on by systematically narrowing candidate time/dates based on multiple conditions. Such improvement in data processing and user interface operation constitutes a technical improvement over conventional system.
Regarding the dependent claims, Applicant submits even if considered a judicial exception, the claims include significantly more.
Regarding Claim 7, the Applicant argues the additional limitations further restrict the claimed processing by incorporating site-based condition into the determination of candidate time/dates, thereby reinforcing that the claim is directed to a specific technical implementation rather than a generalized concept.
Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments. Examiner submits the Applicant’s amendments to the claims are not persuasive.
At Step 2A prong one the claims recite limitations that are scheduling a meeting or other assembly which is an abstract idea. The claims limitations further recite adjustment of a time/date (time and date) of an assembly and adjustment conditions. Examiner submits, steps taken to schedule an assembly/meeting such as checking of a schedule of each participant and securing a site are certain methods of organizing human activity and mental concepts. See the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection below.
Additionally, the claims rely on time/date adjustments to prevent overlapping of scheduling. Adjustments to time/date are mathematical. However, Examiner relies on the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental concepts.
Authentication is disclosed at a high level in the claims. Examiner submits authentication (or verification) can be completed in-person such as showing a badge for access. Or, authentication can be completed over the phone using a spoke password to a human agent to verify an account associated with the user. Authentication is an abstract concept.
Moreover, the claims recite “adjustment initiator” editing the time/date adjustments. As disclosed in the instant specification [066] the adjustment initiator is a user.
Examiner submits the claims are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A prong one.
At Sep 2A Prong two, the additional elements are considered to evaluate if the claims amount to a practical application. The claims broadly recite additional elements (e.g., first terminal apparatus, second terminal apparatus, adjustment condition setting unit, display screen, and external systems via the network) that are computer elements used to complete the judicial exception. The claims do not require 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 the claims is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
This judicial exception of scheduling and scheduling adjustment could be completed using pen and paper. The additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Here, the claims are adding the words “applying 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).
Further, the claims do not recite an improvement to technology or another technology. The claims are using a computer to conduct the judicial exception. The claims are not integrated into a practical application.
At Step 2B, the claims when considered as a whole do not amount significantly more. As discussed above the claims are MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the claims are using a computer to perform the judicial exception. The claims are receiving or transmitting data over a network which MPEP 2106.05(d). The claims do not amount to an improvement. The claims are using a computer and additional elements to generally link the use of the additional exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – See MPEP 2106.05 (h).
Applicant is encouraged to identify a Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Exception that may apply to this instant application for the Examiner to consider.
Applicant is encouraged to point Examiner to the automated adjustment conditioning criteria and possible algorithm that is supported by the specification.
Claims 1-11, 14-15, & 17 are not patent eligible.
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, 14-15 is/are machine.
Claim 16 is/are process.
Claim 17 is/are manufacture.
Claims 1-11, 13-19 1-11, 14-15, & 17 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, “… perform authentication processing of the adjustment initiator … 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 of the adjustment initiator … set an adjustment condition related to an assembly; and … to adjust an assembly time/date based on the adjustment condition, wherein when the adjustment initiator logs … using a user account of the adjustment initiator … simultaneously performs the authentication processing of the adjustment initiator … by using the user account of the adjustment initiator …, the user account being stored in the time/date adjustment apparatus, and obtains the user authentication information of the adjustment initiator …, in correspondence with an operation of the adjustment initiator, causes … to display …. for setting the adjustment condition, and sets the adjustment condition including designations of time required for the assembly, extraction span that is a target span to extract candidate time/dates for the assembly, a time frame in which the assembly is capable of being held, and one or more of participants who are expected to participate in the assembly and whose schedule information is stored …, based on an input of the adjustment …, the time/date adjustment unit accesses … using the user authentication information of the adjustment initiator …, and retrieves the schedule information, which is associated with the user accounts of the participants …, related to all the participants, who are designated in the adjustment condition, … 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, refers to the original schedule information of all the participants in correspondence with an operation of the adjustment initiator, identifies, for each of the participants, available time/dates that are included in the extraction period and the time frame designated in the adjustment condition and in which no existing plan of the participant exists from the original schedule information, identifies, for each of the participants, time/dates A in which the time required for the assembly designated in the adjustment condition is secured from the identified available time/dates, and extracts time/dates corresponding to the time/dates A of at least one of the participants among the identified time/dates A as first candidate time/dates, causes … to display … 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 …, 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 … in correspondence with an operation of the adjustment initiator, and issues access information for … used by the adjustment partner who receives the access information, … performs an access … by using the access information, … accesses … using the user authentication information of the adjustment initiator …, and retrieves the schedule information, which is associated with the user accounts of the participants … related to all the participants, who are designated in the adjustment condition, … 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, refers to the updated schedule information of all the participants, identifies, for each of the participants, available time/dates that are within a range of the second candidate time/dates registered … and in which no existing plan of the participant exists from the updated schedule information, identifies, for each of the participants, time/dates A in which the time required for the assembly designated in the adjustment condition is secured from the identified available time/dates, and extracts time/dates corresponding to the time/dates A of at least one of the participants among the identified time/dates A as third candidate time/dates, causes … to display … 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 … ,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, 14-15, & 17 in view of the claim limitations, are related to the abstract idea of scheduling based on candidate timeframes and adjusting schedule for an assembly/meeting. These claims recite scheduling which is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). The claims recite concepts that are managing personal behaviors, and thus, the claims recite a concept that is grouped into certain methods or organizing human activity.
Furthermore, the claims recite “… setting the adjustment condition, … using the user authentication information of the adjustment initiator …, and retrieves the schedule information, which is associated with the user accounts of the participants …, related to all the participants, who are designated in the adjustment condition, … identifies, for each of the participants, available time/dates that are included in the extraction period and the time frame designated in the adjustment condition and in which no existing plan of the participant exists from the original schedule information, … determines second candidate time/dates edited by an edit operation of the adjustment initiator on the time/date …… 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 … , and accesses … using the user authentication information of the adjustment initiator are evaluations and observations. Concepts that performed in the human mind ( including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) are mental concepts.
The claims recite an abstract concept that is grouped into certain methods of organizing human activity and mental concept so, the claims are directed to a judicial exception at step 2A prong one.
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, comprising:
an authentication unit configured to”, “perform authentication processing of the adjustment initiator with the external”, “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 to”, “ in the time/date adjustment apparatus via the network with the first terminal apparatus”,
“a time/date editing screen”, “a storage unit”, 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); 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 2-11, 14-15 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1.
Claims 1-11, 14-15, & 17 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.
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
Prosecution Insights