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 .
Status of Claims
Office Action is in response to the Applicant's amendments and remarks filed9/11/2025. Claims 1, 9, 15, 20 and 23 were amended. Claims 8, 12-14 and 22 were cancelled. Claims 1-8, 9-11, 15-21 and 23 are presently pending and presented for examination.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
In regards to rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s arguments, filed 9/11/2025, with respect to claims 1-8, 9-11, 15-21 and 23 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that “The claims are directed to a technical solution for controlling user states via an electronic device using collaborative office software, which can solve the technical problem of insufficient user experience caused by persistent state conflicts without affecting the user's manual setting of the user state. Specifically, this technical solution can handle the relationship between preset user states, including automatically activated user states and manually activated user states, to ensure a control of user states. This technical solution directly improves user experience in using collaborative office software and relates to the technical field of computer science, rather than an abstract idea of organizing human activity. Amended independent claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application. For example, claim 1 explicitly recites applying the method to collaborative office software and requires an electronic device to perform the steps. First, claim 1 determines at least one user state as a preset user state in advance, while clarifying that user state activation includes two types, that is, automatic activation and manual activation. Second, during the activation period of the preset user state, claim 1 either cancels or suspends the activation of other automatically activated user states. Third, when a third user state is manually activated and the preset user state is already active, claim 1 still activates the third user state. These elements are not vague abstract rules but specific, machine-executed technical steps that rely on the hardware of the electronic device and software infrastructure of the collaborative office software to implement. In particular, the electronic device in the claim is not a generic computer. It is configured to run the collaborative office software and perform the claimed steps, such as storing preset user states and their activation periods, monitoring the activation status of automatically activated user states, and responding to manual activation operations for the third user state. These steps require the electronic device to use its processor for logical judgment, use its memory for storing user state information, and use its interfaces for interacting with collaborative office software modules. This reliance on specific computing hardware and software functions cannot be achieved through human mental activity or manual operation. These steps form a coherent technical solution for the control of user states, which is tailored to the operational needs of collaborative office software. Compared with simple abstract concepts of "managing user states," the claimed solution is a concrete, implementable technical method that improves the functionality of collaborative office software. Therefore, the additional elements in amended claim 1 provide more than the alleged judicial exception. The solution claimed in amended claim 1 can prevent the automatically activated user state from replacing the preset user state, thereby improving the user experience, thus adding significantly more than the alleged judicial exception. Based on the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claims 1-7, 9-11, 15- 21 and 23 are directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. They recite technical methods implemented through specific computer components, integrate alleged abstract ideas into practical application with concrete technical elements, and provide meaningful limitations that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection are respectfully requested”, (see remarks , pg. 7-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, the current claims are not statutory because they are directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite method for determination of a user state, which is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the methods of organizing human activity grouping such as “electronic device, software of claim 1; software, electronic device, memory, processor of claim 15; computer-readable storage medium, program codes, electronic device, software of claim 23” are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, elements being analyzed for significantly more are mere generic computer components being implemented to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Lastly, with respect to computing elements showing an improvement for the business method of determining user state "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Response to Prior Art Arguments
Applicant's prior art arguments filed 9/11/2025 are persuasive and the prior art has been removed.
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 1-8, 9-11, 15-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites method for determination of a user state.
Step 2A – Prong 1
Independent Claims 1, 15 and 23 as a whole recite a method of organizing human activity. The limitations from exemplary Claim 1 reciting “determining, for a user of the collaborative office , at least one user state as a preset user state in advance, wherein activation of a user state comprises automatic activation and manual activation; cancelling, activation of a further automatically activated user state during an activation period of the preset user state, or suspending, activation of a further automatically activated user state during the activation period of the preset user state; and wherein if the preset user state is already in an activation state at the time that a third user state is manually activated, still activating the third user state” is a method of managing interactions between people, which falls into the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The mere recitation of a generic computer (electronic device, software of claim 1; software, electronic device, memory, processor of claim 15; computer-readable storage medium, program codes, electronic device, software of claim 23) does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 1-8, 9-11, 15-21 and 23 and their underlining limitations, steps, features and terms, are further inspected by the Examiner under the current examining guidelines, and found, both individually and as a whole, not to include additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitations are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05 that are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are not enough include, as a non-limiting or non-exclusive examples, such as: (i) adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions, (ii) insignificant extra solution activity, and/or (iii) generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites the additional elements of (electronic device, software of claim 1; software, electronic device, memory, processor of claim 15; computer-readable storage medium, program codes, electronic device, software of claim 23). The electronic device, software of claim 1; software, electronic device, memory, processor of claim 15; computer-readable storage medium, program codes, electronic device, software of claim 23, are recited at a high level of generality and are generically recited computer elements. The generically recited computer elements amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The combination of these additional elements are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-11 and 16-21 are also directed to same grouping of methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of the electronic device in claims 16-21, are additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combination of elements/limitations in that claim, including the particular configuration of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combination, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)272-7545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 7pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/IBRAHIM N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights