DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Introduction
The following is a final Office Action in response to Applicant’s communications received on June 25, 2026. Claims 29, 31, 36, 38, 40, 44 and 47 have been amended, claims 1-28, 30, 32, 39 and 41 have been canceled.
Currently claims 29, 31, 33-38, 40 and 42-47 are pending, and claims 29, 38 and 47 are independent.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection in this Office Action.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 29, 31, 36, 38, 40, 44 and 47 are NOT sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection as set forth in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection to claims 29, 31, 33-38, 40 and 42-47 has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments field on June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on page 10, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection that the Office Action fails to indicate how this result might have been “predictable”. Applicant recognizes that the Office Action indicates that concepts such as “different controls…at different moments” appears to be considered part of the abstract idea. But in the same manner one could say that all the steps in Example 37 are part of the abstract idea such that Example 37 is just as predictable as the current claims.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 of Example 37 was deemed patent-eligible because it provided a specific improvement over prior art systems by automatically rearranging icons based on a determined amount of use. See 2019 Eligibility Examples pg. 2-3. Thus, claim 1 of Example 37 addressed technological difficulties related to organization of program execution icons. In contrast, Applicant’s claim for displaying the reminder items in the window arranged based on a sequence of start time of the schedule events is predictable. For example, in Example 37, before determining the amount of use, it is unknown which icon will appear near the Start button, but in Applicant’s claim, it is known that specific event and the related apps will appear at the scheduled time.
In the Remarks on page 11, Applicant argues that Ko at least does not disclosing a first schedule event associated with two different applications.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen on Fig. 6H-I below, Ko discloses at least one schedule event and two associated applications (see Fig. 6D-I), namely, a Yoga Class event 605, and associated with the weather condition application 606, and a traffic condition application 620 (see Fig. 6I); and "the set of one or more selection criteria can comprise a temporal context of the current day (e.g., the time of a calendar event shown in platter 606 or the showtime associated with a movie ticket shown in platter 650 in Fig. 6J), the application from which the first or the third set of information is obtained (e.g., surfacing traffic condition from a navigation application to the user at the time of the user's commute home, as shown in platter 638 in FIG. 6J), time until the next scheduled calendar event (e.g., surfacing an activity reminder to the user when the user has time for a workout before the next schedule calendar event, as shown in platter 632 in FIG. 6J) (see ¶ 265).
PNG
media_image1.png
242
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ko also describes that “at a first time of the current day, displaying on the display a first user interface screen comprising: a current time indicator, wherein the current time indicator reflects the first time of the current day; a first platter at a first position on the display, wherein the first platter is associated with a first application and displays a first set of information obtained from the first application, wherein the first set of information relates to a first temporal context of the current day; and an affordance at a second position on the display, wherein the affordance represents an application; detecting a first user input corresponding to a request to scroll the first user interface screen; and in response to detecting the first user input: maintaining display of the affordance at the second position; and displaying a second platter at the first position, wherein the second platter is associated with a second application and displays a second set of information obtained from the second application, and wherein the second set of information relates to the current day.” (see ¶ 18).
Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation to one ordinary skill in the art, Heena teaches the limitations in the form of Applicant shows in Fig. 7A and Fig. 7B.
PNG
media_image2.png
472
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
466
324
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 29, 31, 33-38, 40 and 42-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The added subject matter which is not in the original specification is as follows:
Claims 29, 38 and 47 recite “determining that the state of the first schedule event changes such that it is in the second state and not in the first state”. The newly added limitations appear to constitute new matter. Applicant did not point out, nor was Examiner able to find, any support for these newly added limitations in the specification as originally filed. At most, paragraph [0381] discloses “when the schedule event status of the schedule event change, the electronic device changes the first control in the displayed reminder item of the schedule event to a second control”. However, there is no discussion of determining that the state of the first schedule event changes such that it is in the second state and not in the first state. Applicant is required to cancel or amend the claims in accordance with written description requirements.
Dependent claims 31, 33-37, 40 and 42-46 are also rejected as they depended on the rejected claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 29, 31, 33-38, 40 and 42-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 29, 38 and 47, the claims recite “such that” is renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Dependent claims 31, 33-37, 40 and 42-46 are also rejected as they depended on the rejected claims.
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 29, 31, 33-38, 40 and 42-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to determine whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In this case, claims 29, 31 and 33-37 are directed to a method for displaying reminder items of the schedule event, which falls within the statutory category of a process. Claims 38, 40 and 42-46 are directed to an electronic device comprising a display, a memory, and one or more processor, which falls within the statutory category of a machine. Claim 47 is directed to a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, which falls within the statutory category of a product.
In Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility analysis, it is to “determine whether the claim at issue is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon). Under this step, a two-prong inquiry will be performed to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance), then determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 Guidance), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019).
In Prong One, it is to determine if the claim recites a judicial exception (an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon).
Taking the method as representative, claim 29 recites a notification method, comprising gathering schedule event information and operation data, presenting a reminder item of the schedule event, displaying a second reminder item for the first schedule even in the second state on a display, determining that the state of the first schedule event changes such that it is the second state and not in the first state, displaying a second user interface of the second associated application, and performing a second associated operation through the second associated application; dependent claims 31 and 33-37 further recite limitations: outputting a sound signal or a vibration signal, receiving part or all of the input schedule event information, receiving a third operation for enabling a first service, enabling the first service in response to the third operation”. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. The limitations, as drafted, are directed a method that allows user to manage schedule events using a calendar application or an alarm clock application, managing reminders and operations performed by a first control and a second control, and enabling the first service in response to the third operation. Thus, the claims encompass concepts of commercial interactions and managing human behavior or interactions between people, which fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. The mere nominal recitation of “by the electronic device” and “user interface” do not take the claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. See Under the 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Further, the claims recite a concept similar to the claims as discussed in Electric Power Group (e.g., collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain result of the collection and analysis, see Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea, and the analysis is proceeding to Prong Two.
In Prong Two, it is to determine if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 29 recites the additional elements of “an electronic device having a display and a processor”, “user interface”. Claim 29 recites “the method comprises using the processor and display to perform the steps:”, but did not indicate who is using the processor and display to perform the steps. The Specification further describes that “an electronic device having a display, and the method includes: The electronic device obtains schedule event information of one or more schedule events in a process of running Calendar or Alarm clock” (see ¶ 6); “the electronic device may obtain schedule event information” (see Abstract; ¶ 69); “the electronic device may display user interfaces” (see ¶ 17); “the electronic device may send the schedule event information to another electronic device connected to the electronic device; the electronic device may receive a user operation performed on the control” (see ¶ 71), which are no more than generic computer functions. When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, displaying, and transmitting information over a network. The courts have held that merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). However, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, nothing in the claims that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself or another technology, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effect designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, the analysis is proceeding to Step 2B.
In Step 2B of Alice, it is "a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept’ itself.’” Id. (alternation in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
The claims as described in Prong Two above, nothing in the claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 29 recites the additional elements of “an electronic device having a display and a processor”, “user interface”. Claim 29 recites “the method comprises using the processor and display to perform the steps:”, but did not indicate who is using the processor and display to perform the steps. The Specification further describes that “an electronic device having a display, and the method includes: The electronic device obtains schedule event information of one or more schedule events in a process of running Calendar or Alarm clock” (see ¶ 6); “the electronic device may obtain schedule event information” (see Abstract; ¶ 69); “the electronic device may display user interfaces” (see ¶ 17); “the electronic device may send the schedule event information to another electronic device connected to the electronic device; the electronic device may receive a user operation performed on the control” (see ¶ 71), which are no more than generic computer functions. When given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the Specification, these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely invoked as tools to perform generic computer functions including receiving, displaying, and transmitting information over a network. However, generic computer for performing generic computer functions have been recognized by the courts as merely well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (d) (II) (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); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer for performing generic computer functions do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c), (e-f) & (h)).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 29, 31 and 33-37 cover subject matter that is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101 as discussed above, the other claims 38, 40, 42-46 and 47 parallel claims 29, 31 and 33-37—similarly cover claimed subject matter that is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under § 101.
Therefore, the claims as a whole, viewed individually and as a combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 29, 31, 33-38, 40 and 42-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heena Ko et al., (AU 2018206770, hereinafter: Ko), and in view of Atsushi Tomoeda et al., (JP 6189660 B2, hereinafter: Atsushi).
Regarding claim 29, Ko discloses a notification method, wherein the method is applied to an electronic device having a display and a processor (see ¶ 7-11), and the method comprises using the processor and the display to perform the steps:
obtaining, by the electronic device (see ¶ 8), schedule event information of one or more schedule events in a process of running a calendar application (see ¶ 188, ¶ 195, ¶ 201-202, ¶ 282) or an alarm clock application (see ¶ 199-202, ¶ 292, ¶ 313), wherein the one or more schedule events comprise a first schedule event and a second schedule event, the schedule event information comprises first schedule event information associated with the first schedule event and second schedule event information associated with the second schedule event (see ¶ 7-8, ¶ 126, ¶ 195, ¶ 202, ¶ 217, ¶ 265, ¶ 295), wherein the first schedule event information comprises:
a first execution time of the first schedule event (see ¶ 12-13, ¶ 23-26),
a first associated application (see ¶ 8-9, ¶ 12-13, ¶ 18, ¶ 22, ¶ 223),
a first associated operation (see ¶ 63, ¶ 95, ¶ 169),
a second associated application (see ¶ 12-13, ¶ 18, ¶ 22-23, ¶ 220, ¶ 231), and
a second associated operation (see ¶ 63, ¶ 95, ¶ 169),
wherein a schedule event status of the first schedule event includes a first state and a second state (see ¶ 64, ¶ 92, ¶ 140, ¶ 143); and
wherein the second schedule event information comprises a second execution time of the second schedule event and a third associated application (see ¶ 8, ¶ 13, ¶ 18, ¶ 23, ¶ 28);
displaying, by the electronic device, a first reminder item of the first schedule event in the first state and a third reminder item of the second schedule event on the display, wherein the first reminder item comprises part or all of the first schedule event information and a first control, and wherein the third reminder item comprises part or all of the second schedule event information (see ¶ 199-202, ¶ 220, ¶ 265);
receiving, by the electronic device, a first operation performed on the first control (see ¶ 95-96, ¶ 126, ¶ 169, ¶ 172-174);
in response to the first operation, displaying, by the display of the electronic device, a first user interfaces of the first associated applications, and performing, by the electronic device, the first associated operation through the first associated application (see ¶ 8, ¶ 13, ¶ 17-18);
after the displaying, by the electronic device, the first reminder item of the first schedule event on the display, the method further comprises: when detecting that the schedule event status is changed from the first state to a second state, changing, by the electronic device, the first control in the reminder item to a second control (see ¶ 29-31, ¶ 220-223, ¶ 227, ¶ 230);
displaying, by the electronic device, a second reminder item of the first schedule event in the second state and the third reminder item on the display (see ¶ 199-202), wherein the second reminder item comprises part of all of the first schedule event information and a second control, wherein the second control is different from the first control (see ¶ 127, ¶ 137, ¶ 195, ¶ 202, ¶ 207, ¶ 220, ¶ 265, ¶ 281, ¶ 265);
receiving, by the electronic device, a second operation performed on the second control (see ¶ 95-96, ¶ 126, ¶ 169, ¶ 172-174); and
in response to the second operation, displaying, by the display of the electronic device, a second user interface of the second associated application, and performing, by the electronic device, a second associated operation through the second associated application (see ¶ 7, ¶ 18, ¶ 28, ¶ 223);
wherein the first associated application and the second associated application are different applications (see ¶ 29, ¶ 190, ¶ 220, ¶ 241, ¶ 249, ¶ 275), and
wherein the first associated operation and the second associated operation are different operations (see ¶ 97, ¶ 172).
Ko discloses determining an even or sub-event updates the state of an even or sub-event (see ¶ 140).
Ko does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Atsushi in an analogous art for event management discloses
determining that the state of the first schedule event changes such that it is in the second state and not in the first state (see pg. 3, ¶ 13; pg. 8, ¶ 6; pg. 9, ¶ 1-3; pg. 26, ¶ 4-5);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Boal and in view of Pollak to include teaching of Fleischman in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, the wherein causes merely describing the characteristics of the schedule event, the associated application, and the associated operation are directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 31, Ko discloses the method of claim 29 wherein the displaying, by the electronic device, the first reminder item of the first schedule event in the first state on the display comprises:
displaying, by the electronic device on the display (see ¶ 8), a third user interface provided by the calendar application (see ¶ 268, ¶ 381), wherein the third user interface comprises a calendar and the first reminder item of the first schedule event (see ¶ 264-265, ¶ 281, ¶ 289, claim 24).
Regarding claim 33, Ko discloses the method of claim 29, wherein the electronic device obtains the schedule event information of the one or more schedule events in the process of running the alarm clock application; and
when displaying, by the electronic device, the first reminder item of the first schedule event in the first state on the display (see ¶ 189, ¶ 199-202, ¶ 220, ¶ 265), the method further comprises:
outputting, by the electronic device, a sound signal or a vibration signal (see ¶ 75-76, ¶ 117-118).
Regarding claim 34, Ko discloses the method of claim 29, wherein before the obtaining, by the electronic device, the schedule event information of one or more schedule events in the process of running the calendar application or the alarm clock application (see ¶ 5, ¶ 115, ¶ 211), the method further comprises:
displaying, by the electronic device on the display (see ¶ 7-8), a fourth user interface provided by a source application (see ¶ 270, claim 62); and
receiving, by the electronic device, the part or all of the input schedule event information in the fourth user interface (see ¶ 270-271).
Regarding claim 35, Ko discloses the method of claim 29, wherein before the displaying, by the electronic device, the first reminder item of the first schedule event on the display (see ¶ 199-202, ¶ 220-223), the method further comprises:
receiving, by the electronic device, a third operation for enabling a first service (see ¶ 223, ¶ 230, ¶ 265, ¶ 282, ¶ 297); and
enabling, by the electronic device, the first service in response to the third operation, wherein the first service is used by the electronic device to run the first associated application and perform the first associated operation by using the reminder item (see ¶ 226, ¶ 295, ¶ 297, ¶ 354).
Regarding claim 36, Ko discloses the method of claim 29, wherein the schedule event information further comprises one or more of the following:
an identifier, a name, a type, duration, a place, a participant, the source application, the schedule event status, or the first reminder time of the schedule event (see ¶ 140, ¶ 188, ¶ 199, ¶ 202, ¶ 217, ¶ 281).
In addition, claim 36 merely describing the attributes of the schedule event information is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 37, Ko discloses the method of claim 36, wherein the schedule event status comprises:
before the schedule event, during the schedule event, and after the schedule event (see ¶ 169, ¶ 265, ¶ 383).
In addition, claim 37 merely describing the type of schedule event status is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 38, Ko discloses an electronic device (see ¶ 8), comprising a display, a memory, and one or more processors, wherein the display and the memory are coupled to the one or more processors (see ¶ 7-11), the memory is configured to store computer program code comprising computer instructions (see ¶ 13-18), when executed by the one or more processors enable the electronic device to perform the following operations:
obtaining schedule event information of one or more schedule events in a process of running a calendar application (see ¶ 188, ¶ 195, ¶ 201-202, ¶ 282) or an alarm clock application (see ¶ 199-202, ¶ 292, ¶ 313), wherein the one or more schedule events comprise a first schedule event and a second schedule event, the schedule event information comprises first schedule event information associated with the first schedule event and second schedule event information associated with the second schedule event (see ¶ 7-8, ¶ 126, ¶ 195, ¶ 202, ¶ 217, ¶ 265, ¶ 295), wherein the first schedule event information comprises:
a first execution time of the first schedule event (see ¶ 12-13, ¶ 23-26),
a first associated application (see ¶ 8-9, ¶ 12-13, ¶ 18, ¶ 22, ¶ 223),
a first associated operation (see ¶ 63, ¶ 95, ¶ 169),
a second associated application (see ¶ 12-13, ¶ 18, ¶ 22-23, ¶ 220, ¶ 231), and
a second associated operation (see ¶ 63, ¶ 95, ¶ 169),
wherein a schedule event status of the first schedule event includes a first state and a second state (see ¶ 64, ¶ 92, ¶ 140, ¶ 143); and
wherein the second schedule event information comprises a second execution time of the second schedule event and a third associated application (see ¶ 8, ¶ 13, ¶ 18, ¶ 23, ¶ 28);
displaying, by the electronic device, a first reminder item of the first schedule event in the first state and a third reminder item of the second schedule event on the display, wherein the first reminder item comprises part or all of the first schedule event information and a first control, and wherein the third reminder item comprises part or all of the second schedule event information (see ¶ 199-202, ¶ 220, ¶ 265);
receiving a first operation performed on the first control (see ¶ 95-96, ¶ 126, ¶ 169, ¶ 172-174);
in response to the first operation, displaying, by the display of the electronic device, a first user interfaces of the first associated applications, and performing, by the electronic device, the first associated operation through the first associated application (see ¶ 8, ¶ 13, ¶ 17-18);
after the displaying, by the electronic device, the first reminder item of the first schedule event on the display, the method further comprises:
displaying, by the electronic device, a second reminder item of the first schedule event in the second state and the third reminder item on the display (see ¶ 199-202), wherein the second reminder item comprises part of all of the first schedule event information and a second control, wherein the second control is different from the first control (see ¶ 127, ¶ 137, ¶ 195, ¶ 202, ¶ 207, ¶ 220, ¶ 265, ¶ 281, ¶ 265);
receiving, by the electronic device, a second operation performed on the second control (see ¶ 95-96, ¶ 126, ¶ 169, ¶ 172-174); and
in response to the second operation, displaying, by the display of the electronic device, a second user interface of the second associated application, and performing, by the electronic device, a second associated operation through the second associated application (see ¶ 7, ¶ 18, ¶ 28, ¶ 223);
wherein the first associated application and the second associated application are different applications (see ¶ 29, ¶ 190, ¶ 220, ¶ 241, ¶ 249, ¶ 275), and
wherein the first associated operation and the second associated operation are different operations (see ¶ 97, ¶ 172).
Ko discloses determining an even or sub-event updates the state of an even or sub-event (see ¶ 140).
Ko does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Atsushi in an analogous art for event management discloses
determining that the state of the first schedule event changes such that it is in the second state and not in the first state (see pg. 3, ¶ 13; pg. 8, ¶ 6; pg. 9, ¶ 1-3; pg. 26, ¶ 4-5);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Boal and in view of Pollak to include teaching of Fleischman in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, the wherein causes merely describing the characteristics of the schedule event, the associated application, and the associated operation are directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 40, Ko discloses the electronic device of claim 38, wherein the computer instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, enable the electronic device to perform the following operation:
displaying, by the electronic device on the display (see ¶ 8), a third user interface provided by the calendar application (see ¶ 268, ¶ 381), wherein the third user interface comprises a calendar and the first reminder item of the first schedule event (see ¶ 264-265, ¶ 281, ¶ 289, claim 24).
Regarding claim 42, Ko discloses the electronic device of claim 38, wherein the electronic device obtains the schedule event information of the one or more schedule events in the process of running the alarm clock application (see ¶ 199, ¶ 210-211); and the computer instructions, when executed by the one or more processors (see ¶ 199, ¶ 201, ¶ 265), further enable the electronic device to perform the following operation:
outputting, by the electronic device, a sound signal or a vibration signal (see ¶ 75-76, ¶ 117-118).
Regarding claim 43, Ko discloses the electronic device of claim 38, wherein the computer instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further enable the electronic device to perform the following operations:
in the process of running the calendar application or the alarm clock application, before obtaining schedule event information of one or more schedule events, displaying, on the display (see ¶ 7-8), a fourth user interface provided by a source application (see ¶ 270, claim 62); and
receiving the part or all of the input schedule event information in the fourth user interface (see ¶ 270-271).
Regarding claim 44, Ko discloses the electronic device of claim 38, wherein the computer instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further enable the electronic device to perform the following operations:
before the displaying the first reminder item of the first schedule event on the display, receiving a third operation for enabling a first service (see ¶ 199-202, ¶ 220-223); and
enabling the first service in response to the third operation, wherein the first service is used by the electronic device to run the first associated application and perform the first associated operation by using the first reminder item (see ¶ 226, ¶ 295, ¶ 297, ¶ 354).
Regarding claim 45, Ko discloses the electronic device of claim 38, wherein the schedule event information further comprises one or more of the following: an identifier, a name, a type, duration, a place, a participant, the source application, the schedule event status, or the reminder time of the schedule event (see ¶ 140, ¶ 188, ¶ 199, ¶ 202, ¶ 217, ¶ 281).
In addition, claim 45 merely describing the attributes of the schedule event information is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 46, Ko discloses the electronic device of claim 38, wherein the schedule event status comprises:
before the schedule event, during the schedule event, and after the schedule event (see ¶ 169, ¶ 265, ¶ 383).
In addition, claim 46 merely describing the type of schedule event status is directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 47, Ko discloses a computer-readable storage medium, comprising instructions, wherein when the instructions are run on an electronic device having a display and a processor (see ¶ 7-8, ¶ 13-18), the electronic device is enabled to perform:
obtaining schedule event information of one or more schedule events in a process of running a calendar application (see ¶ 188, ¶ 195, ¶ 201-202, ¶ 282) or an alarm clock application (see ¶ 199-202, ¶ 292, ¶ 313), wherein the one or more schedule events comprise a first schedule event and a second schedule event, the schedule event information comprises first schedule event information associated with the first schedule event and second schedule event information associated with the second schedule event (see ¶ 7-8, ¶ 126, ¶ 195, ¶ 202, ¶ 217, ¶ 265, ¶ 295), wherein the first schedule event information comprises:
a first execution time of the first schedule event (see ¶ 12-13, ¶ 23-26),
a first associated application (see ¶ 8-9, ¶ 12-13, ¶ 18, ¶ 22, ¶ 223),
a first associated operation (see ¶ 63, ¶ 95, ¶ 169),
a second associated application (see ¶ 12-13, ¶ 18, ¶ 22-23, ¶ 220, ¶ 231), and
a second associated operation (see ¶ 63, ¶ 95, ¶ 169),
wherein a schedule event status of the first schedule event includes a first state and a second state (see ¶ 64, ¶ 92, ¶ 140, ¶ 143); and
wherein the second schedule event information comprises an execution time of the second schedule event and a third associated application (see ¶ 8, ¶ 13, ¶ 18, ¶ 23, ¶ 28);
displaying, by the electronic device, a first reminder item of the first schedule event in the first state and a third reminder item of the second schedule event on the display, wherein the first reminder item comprises part or all of the first schedule event information and a first control, and wherein the third reminder item comprises part or all of the second schedule event information (see ¶ 199-202, ¶ 220, ¶ 265);;
receiving, by the electronic device, a first operation performed on the first control (see ¶ 95-96, ¶ 126, ¶ 169, ¶ 172-174);
in response to the first operation, displaying, by the display of the electronic device, a first user interfaces of the first associated applications, and performing, by the electronic device, the first associated operation through the first associated application (see ¶ 8, ¶ 13, ¶ 17-18);
after the displaying, by the electronic device, the first reminder item of the first schedule event on the display, the method further comprises:
displaying, by the electronic device, a second reminder item of the first schedule event in the second state and the third reminder item on the display (see ¶ 199-202), wherein the second reminder item comprises part of all of the first schedule event information and a second control, wherein the second control is different from the first control (see ¶ 127, ¶ 137, ¶ 195, ¶ 202, ¶ 207, ¶ 220, ¶ 265, ¶ 281, ¶ 265);
receiving, by the electronic device, a second operation performed on the second control (see ¶ 95-96, ¶ 126, ¶ 169, ¶ 172-174); and
in response to the second operation, displaying, by the display of the electronic device, a second user interface of the second associated application, and performing, by the electronic device, a second associated operation through the second associated application (see ¶ 7, ¶ 18, ¶ 28, ¶ 223);
wherein the first associated application and the second associated application are different applications (see ¶ 29, ¶ 190, ¶ 220, ¶ 241, ¶ 249, ¶ 275), and
wherein the first associated operation and the second associated operation are different operations (see ¶ 97, ¶ 172).
Ko discloses determining an even or sub-event updates the state of an even or sub-event (see ¶ 140).
Ko does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Atsushi in an analogous art for event management discloses
determining that the state of the first schedule event changes such that it is in the second state and not in the first state (see pg. 3, ¶ 13; pg. 8, ¶ 6; pg. 9, ¶ 1-3; pg. 26, ¶ 4-5);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Boal and in view of Pollak to include teaching of Fleischman in order to gain the commonly understood benefit of such adaption, such as providing the benefit of a more optimal solution, in turn of operational efficiency. Since the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In addition, the wherein causes merely describing the characteristics of the schedule event, the associated application, and the associated operation are directed to nonfunctional descriptive material because they cannot exhibit any functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed. Therefore, it has been held that nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the invention from prior art in term of patentability. (In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Ngai, 70 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2004), In re Lowry, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994); MPEP 2111.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ren et al., (CN 110796426) discloses a schedule reminding method for obtaining the schedule reminding queue, polymerizing reminding time corresponding to each user, and determining the target polymerization reminding period according to the polymerization reminding time corresponding to the target user.
Gross et al., (US 2016/0360336) discloses a method proactively populating an application with information that was previously viewed by a user in a different application.
Jain et al., (US 2008/0189159) discloses a method for providing a meeting notification includes adding an indication of an observer to a calendar event in a calendar graphical user interface at an organizer electronic device.
Li, (WO 2018166487) discloses a schedule processing method for determining a first schedule reminder event to be shared by acquiring a set of designated participating objects, updating a first schedule reminder event on the basis of the set of designated participating objects to obtain a second schedule reminder event.
Gilzean et al., (US 2012/0254419) discloses a method for notifying users of events based on user notification information in a storage location and notification information pertains to a schedule event.
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 PAN CHOY whose telephone number is (571)270-7038. The examiner can normally be reached 5/4/9 compressed work schedule.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on 571-272-6787. 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.
/PAN G CHOY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights