DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/601,306. Claims 1 -11 are examined below.
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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 05, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“… an acquisition part…”, in claim 8;
“ … a processing part …”, in claim 8;
“ … an output part …”, in claim 8;
“… a display part …”, in claims 10, 11.
“… communication part…”, in claim 11;
“… input part … ”, in claim 11;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Further, Examiner notes that a review of the specification reveals that the specification does not clearly set forth a particular corresponding structure for performing the claimed function.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Second Paragraph
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AlA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims recites the limitations: …“… an acquisition part that acquires event information …”, “ … a processing part that creates, “ … an output part that outputs the schedule information …, ” in claim 8; “… A communication terminal, comprising: a communication part …”, in claim 11; “… input part receives an input of responses … ”, in claim 11; and “… the display part displays …” in claims 10, 11. These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the generic placeholders “an acquisition part …”, “a processing part”, “an output part”, “a display part”, “input part …” coupled with functional language “… acquires event information”, “displaying …” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function or to modify the generic placeholder. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The written description does not include the structural elements to carry out these specifically claimed functions.
Claims 2-7 depend on claim 1 and do not cure the aforementioned deficiencies of claim 1, and thus, claims 2-7 are rejected for the reasons set forth above regarding claim 1 as a result.
Applicant may: (a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01 (o) and 2181.
Claim 11 recites “… the input part receives an input of response information …” the limitation of the claim lacks antecedent basis.
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 1-6 are process.
Claim 8 is machine.
Claim 9 is manufacture.
Claim 10 is process.
Claim 11 is machine.
Applicant is cautioned to clarify an embodiment, supported by the specification, of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 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 claim 8 and claim 9 ) recites, “… acquiring event information including a condition of a target user who executes an event; creating, on the basis of the acquired event information, schedule information indicating an event planned to be executed; acquiring response information from the target user as to whether the event included in the event information can be executed or not; updating, on the basis of the acquired response information, the schedule information to indicate the event which can be executed; and outputting the updated schedule information, wherein the event information includes information indicating the event executed by the target user, and further includes … including a plurality of records, each of the records including a field for an event ID identifying the event planned to be executed and a field for a target user ID identifying the target user who is to execute the event”, are mental concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The claims recite the abstract concept of gathering information and scheduling.
The claims (claim 10 and similarly claim 11) recite, “… receiving schedule information indicating an event planned to be executed … and displaying the received schedule information …, the schedule information having been created … on the basis of event information including a condition of a target user who executes the event; receiving response information from the target user as to whether the event included in the event information can be executed or not, and transmitting the response information …; and receiving, …, the schedule information updated … on the basis of the response information to indicate the event which can be executed, and displaying the received schedule information…, wherein the event information includes information indicating the event executed by the target user, and further includes … including a plurality of records, each of the records including a field for an event ID identifying the event planned to be executed and a field for a target user ID identifying the target user who is to execute the event.”, are mental concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The claims recite the abstract concept of gathering information and scheduling.
Accordingly, the claims recite certain mental processes, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception 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 method for providing schedule information, comprising: by an information processing device”, “a database”, in claim 1; “An information processing device, comprising: an acquisition part”, “a processing part that creates”, “by the acquisition part”, “by the acquisition part”, “an output part”, “a database”, in claim 8; “A computer-readable recording medium recording a program for causing an information processing device to perform processing, comprising:”, “a database”, in claim 9; “A method for providing schedule information, comprising: by a communication terminal,”, “from an information processing device”, “on a display part”, “on a display part”, “a database”, in claim 10; “A communication terminal, comprising: a communication part, a display part; and a display part, wherein the communication part”, “an information processing device”, “a database including a plurality of records”, in claim 11; 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)
The dependent claims do not recite additional elements that are not recited in the dependent claims.
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 fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element 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 effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) Mere Instruction to Apply an Exception – Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct at 235).
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).
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function (s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent claims 2-7 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. The claims 1-7 are not patent eligible.
The claims 8, 9, 10 are independent and do not have dependent claims.
Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-7 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Barijough (US 2018/0,082,259 A1) .
Regarding Claim 1, (and similarly claim 8 and claim 9)
A method for providing schedule information, comprising: by an information processing device, acquiring event information including a condition of a target user who executes an event; creating, on the basis of the acquired event information, schedule information indicating an event planned to be executed;
Barijough [abstract] teaches calculating collaborative schedule information and generating a collaborative schedule as the feasible schedule selected by the members., Barijough [abstract], [Figure 2], [Figure 7].
PNG
media_image1.png
582
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
acquiring response information from the target user as to whether the event included in the event information can be executed or not;
Barijough [026] teaches the group inputs may include tasks and constraints. The tasks may include any event or responsibility that one or more of the members 113 is to perform. Tasks performed by one of the members 113 may be referred to as an individual member task. … the collaborative schedule 115 may be generated to incorporate the hard tasks without modification. The collaborative schedule 115 may be generated to incorporate the flexible task; however, one or more of the flexible tasks may be violated., Barijough [026]; Barijough [0027] teaches the constraints may include any limitation that may prohibit or constrain performance of one or more of the tasks. … Some examples of constraint may be the availability. .. [028] … The feasible schedules include combinations of the tasks and the constraints of the members 113. In the feasible schedules the tasks are complete by the members 113 and the constraints are not violated., Barijough [Figure 2 and the associated text], [026] -[0028], [Figure 3 and the associated text].
Barijough [065] teaches the collaborative schedule computation engine 108 may then identify the feasible schedules 216 as a subset of the possible schedules that are achievable without violation of the individual member constraints 208 or the mutual member constraints 210. Because the above example may be complete without violating the constraints, it may be included in the feasible schedules 216., Barijough [065]
updating, on the basis of the acquired response information, the schedule information to indicate the event which can be executed;
Barijough [031] teaches the traits of the members 113 may be updated as feedback is received from the members 113. The traits may then be incorporated into computation of the total schedule., Barijough [Figure 2 and the associated text], [031], [044].
and outputting the updated schedule information, wherein the event information includes information indicating the event executed by the target user, and further includes a database including a plurality of records, each of the records including a field for an event ID identifying the event planned to be executed and a field for a target user ID identifying the target user who is to execute the event.
Barijough [044] discloses the server schedule module 104 may communicate the collaborative schedule information to the member devices and to receive feedback from the members 113. The server schedule module 104 may be configured to determine the traits of the members based on the feedback. The server schedule module 104 may be configured to update the traits of the members based on the received feedback. In some embodiments, server schedule module 104 may be configured to set an initial value for traits of the members 113 and update the initial value. The server schedule module 104 may be configured to generate the collaborative schedule 115 as one of the feasible schedules that is selected by or highly ranked among the members 113., Barijough [044], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
Regarding Claim 2,
The method for providing schedule information according to claim 1, wherein there is a plurality of target users, the method further comprising acquiring, from all the users, response information indicating that an event can be executed by the users, and determining that the event can be executed.
Barijough [004] discloses the method may include receiving, by the calendar server, feedback from each member. The feedback may include a selection of a feasible schedule as a preferred schedule. The method may include determining, by the calendar server, a first trait and a second trait of each member. The first trait may be assumed when the feasible schedule that is selected places a higher total schedule cost on other members. The second trait may be assumed when the feasible schedule that is selected places a lower total schedule cost on the other members. The method may include generating, by the calendar server, a collaborative schedule as the feasible schedule selected by the members., Barijough [004], [065].
Barijough [020] discusses accepting a schedule.
Regarding Claim 3,
The method for providing schedule information according to claim 2, wherein the schedule information includes list information indicating a list of a plurality of events which can be executed by the users.
Barijough [050] discloses the server schedule module 104 may also include a schedule collection engine 114. The schedule collection engine 114 may be configured to receive or access the group input 202 from the member device 124. For instance, the member 113 may interface with the member device 124 to provide user input, which may then be communicated to the schedule collection engine 114., Barijough [050], [065].
Regarding Claim 4,
The method for providing schedule information according to claim 3, wherein the schedule information further includes individual information indicating an event which can be executed by each of the users.
Barijough [Figure 2 and the associated text], [Figure 7and the associated text].
Barijough [0060] discloses for the tasks 204 and 206 in the tasks groups, the collaborative schedule computation engine 108 may consider one or more possibilities for unknown location parameters. For instance, using the example task and the second example task described above, the collaborative schedule computation engine 108 may consider possibilities for “Z” and “b” of the example task. For example, “Z” and “b” may be “home.” Accordingly, the start point for each of the example task and the second example task may be home. Alternatively, the “Z” may be “daycare” and the member may drive from “daycare” to “work.” Additionally, “b” may be “home”. Thus, the member 113 may drive from “home” to “daycare” and from “daycare” to “work.”,
Regarding Claim 6,
The method for providing schedule information according to claim 1, wherein, in the acquiring of the response information, response information from a substituting user who executes the event in substitution for the target user is acquired; and, in the updating of the schedule information, when the response information indicating that the event can be executed is acquired from the substituting user, the schedule information is updated on the basis of the response information to indicate the event which can be executed.
See above. Barijough [0060], [065], [Figure 2].
Regarding Claim 7,
The method for providing schedule information according to claim 6, wherein the event information further includes a condition of the substituting user.
See above. Barijough [0060], [Figure 2].
Regarding Claim 11, (and similarly claim 10)
A communication terminal, comprising: a communication part, a display part; and a display part, wherein the communication part receives schedule information indicating an event planned to be executed from an information processing device, and the display part displays the received schedule information, the schedule information having been created by the information processing device on the basis of event information including a condition of a target user who executes the event, the input part receives an input of response information from the target user as to whether the event included in the event information can be executed or not, and the communication part transmits the response information to the information processing device, and the communication part receives, from the information processing device, the schedule information updated by the information processing device on the basis of the response information to indicate the event which can be executed, and the display part displays the received schedule information, wherein the event information includes information indicating the event executed by the target user, and further includes a database including a plurality of records, each of the records including a field for an event ID identifying the event planned to be executed and a field for a target user ID identifying the target user who is to execute the event.
See claim 1. Barijough [050], [065], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 7].
See claim 4. Barijough [060].
Barijough [094] teaches the collaborative schedule information includes computing the total schedule … for each member and for each of the feasible schedules.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barijough (US 2018/0,082,259 A1) and Yurkell (US 2008/0,066,072 A1).
Regarding Claim 5,
The method for providing schedule information according to claim 1, further comprising giving, in the schedule information, … to an event planned to be executed … to an event which can be executed.
Barijough [065] teaches the collaborative schedule computation engine 108 may then identify the feasible schedules 216 as a subset of the possible schedules that are achievable without violation of the individual member constraints 208 or the mutual member constraints 210. Because the above example may be complete without violating the constraints, it may be included in the feasible schedules 216., Barijough [065].
Although highly suggested, Barijough does not teach:
… a mark showing schedule unsettlement … and a mark showing schedule settlement
Yurkell teaches:
… a mark showing schedule unsettlement … and a mark showing schedule settlement
Yurkell [060] discloses if a task cannot be assigned to a resource, the task will be marked as "Unscheduled". The reason for this could be either there being no capable resource available that can perform the task., Yurkell [060], [089].
Barijough teaches collaborative scheduling. Yurkell teaches computer-implemented processes, for example, controlling the scheduling and the allocation of individual processes in a project. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, determining possible schedules that are achievable without violation of the individual member constraint, as taught by Barijough, with if a task cannot be assigned to a resource, the task will be marked as "Unscheduled", as taught by Yurkell, to improve utilization of the resources., Yurkell [003].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mutlu (2015, A co-availability scheduling model for coordinating multi-disciplinary care teams.) discloses a schedule template optimization model that maximises the amount of time during which required or well matched people are ‘co-available”.
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 at 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