DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Final office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 1/22/2026. Claims 1-7, 11 and 15-19 have been amended. Claims 9 and 10 have been canceled. Claims 1-8 and 11-19 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Additionally, Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, apparatus claims 1-16 are directed to processing circuitry, system claims 17 and 18 are directed to an information processing apparatus and a terminal apparatus, and processing circuitry, respectively, and method claim 19 is directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to a machine and process, respectively.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite task arrangement, including receiving, acquiring, dividing, arranging, changing, transmitting, and displaying steps.
The limitations of receiving, acquiring, dividing, arranging, changing, transmitting, and displaying, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements recite receive task information of a new task input through the terminal apparatus, the task information including a subject of the new task, an estimated time to work the new task, and a preset time unit by which the new task is divided; in response to receiving the task information of the new task from the terminal apparatus, acquire a registered task arranged in a schedule; divide the new task into a plurality of divisional tasks by the preset time unit, each divisional task representing part of the new task and being individually arranged in the schedule; automatically arrange the divisional tasks of the new task in the schedule in an interrupting manner by arranging the divisional tasks in time slots of the schedule in which the registered task is arranged; change an arrangement of the registered task, based on the automatically arranged divisional tasks of the new task, and thereby generate a rearranged schedule; and transmit screen data of the rearranged schedule to the terminal apparatus, the screen data of the rearranged schedule including the automatically arranged divisional tasks displayed with the subject of the new task.
That is, other than reciting processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network, the claim limitations merely cover managing interactions between people, following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network. The processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2-8 further describe changing the arrangement of the registered task and arranging the divisional tasks of the new task. Claims 11 and 12 recite additional receiving, and generating steps. Claims 13-16 recite additional generating and issuing steps. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed on page 5 of the specification, “The task management apparatus 10 and the user terminals 20 according to the present embodiment may each be implemented, for example, by a computer. FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a hardware configuration of the computer according to the present embodiment. As illustrated in FIG. 2, the computer according to the present embodiment includes a central processing unit (CPU) 501, a read-only memory (ROM) 502, a random access memory (RAM) 503, a hard disk (HD) 504, a hard disk drive (HDD) controller 505, a display 506, an external device connection interface (I/F) 508, a network I/F 509, a bus line 510, a keyboard 511, a pointing device 512, a digital versatile disk rewritable (DVD-RW) drive 514, and a medium I/F 516.”
Moreover, as discussed on page 4 of the specification, “An example of the task management apparatus 10 and the user terminals 20 is computers. The user terminals 20 are not limited to computers and may be any apparatuses having a communication function. The user terminals 20 may be, for example, an image forming apparatus (a printer, a facsimile machine, a multifunction peripheral/product/printer (MFP), or a scanner), a projector (PJ), an interactive whiteboard (IWB) having an electronic whiteboard function with interactive communication, an output device such as a digital signage, a head-up display (HUD), an industrial machine, an image-capturing device, a sound-collecting device, a medical equipment, a network-connected home appliance, an automobile (connected car), a notebook personal computer (PC), a mobile phone, a smart phone, a tablet terminal, a gaming machine, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a digital camera, a wearable PC, or a desktop PC.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
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 (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.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jardine et al (US 20090299810 A1), in view of Shenk et al (US 20170344931 A1).
As per claim 1, Jardine et al disclose an information processing apparatus comprising: processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network, the information processing apparatus (i.e., environment 100 can include one or more components, some or all of which may be implemented in software or hardware. The main smarttime logic 110 may provide a user interface and other logic to enable the smarttime environment to provide services to a user. It may operate with the smarttime prioritization logic 120 to prioritize tasks and events stored in a smarttime calendar, ¶ 0031) configured to:
recite receive task information of a new task input through the terminal apparatus, the task information including a subject of the new task, an estimated time to work the new task, and a preset time unit by which the new task is divided (i.e., A user can select the displayed month name 2202 to select a monthly view (described below in relation to FIG. 24). A user can select any region of a date bar 2216, e.g. region 2204, to open a window that the user can employ to add a new task or event. The user can select a back button 2206 or a forward button 2208 to move backward or forward in the calendar, respectively. A region 2216 can display projects or time horizons during which related tasks or events are scheduled, ¶ 0055);
in response to receiving the task information of the new task from the terminal apparatus, acquire a registered task arranged in a schedule (i.e., A region 2216 can display projects or time horizons during which related tasks or events are scheduled, ¶ 0055);
automatically arrange the divisional tasks of the new task in the schedule in an interrupting manner by arranging the divisional tasks in time slots of the schedule in which the registered task is arranged (i.e., When tasks or events are added, removed, or modified in the smarttime calendar, the smarttime system may reassign other tasks to available time segments based on various priorities, ¶ 0028);
change an arrangement of the registered task, based on the automatically arranged divisional tasks of the new task, and thereby generate a rearranged schedule (i.e., When tasks or events are added, removed, or modified in the smarttime calendar, the smarttime system may reassign other tasks to available time segments based on various priorities, ¶ 0028); and
transmit screen data of the rearranged schedule to the terminal apparatus, the screen data of the rearranged schedule including the automatically arranged divisional tasks displayed with the subject of the new task (i.e., By selecting a particular day (e.g., region 2212), the user can display additional details about the selected day. Bars in regions of each day (e.g., bars 2214) may be shaded to indicate portions of days that have scheduled events. The bars may be color-coded to show associations with particular projects, ¶ 0055).
While Jardine et al disclose a task or event can also be split into two or more tasks/events (¶ 0027), Jardine et al does not explicitly disclose divide the new task into a plurality of divisional tasks by the preset time unit, each divisional task representing part of the new task and being individually arranged in the schedule.
Shenk et al disclose task based calendar items may be scheduled as a single item based on user schedule availability. In other embodiments, the task related calendar items may be split. For example, two items may be created on consecutive days. Thus, the task may be divided into incremental subtasks. Task attributes may also define whether the time reserved for the task related calendar item is to be indicated on the calendar as available, busy, tentative, or otherwise. The calendar item may include a check control for the user to indicate completion (¶ 0047).
Jardine et al and Shenk et al are concerned with effective task management. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include divide the new task into a plurality of divisional tasks by the preset time unit, each divisional task representing part of the new task and being individually arranged in the schedule in Jardine et al, as seen in Shenk et al, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination 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.
As per claim 2, Jardine et al disclose the circuitry is configured change the arrangement of the registered task to be in a time slot other than the time slot in which the new task is arranged (i.e., When tasks or events are added, removed, or modified in the smarttime calendar, the smarttime system may reassign other tasks to available time segments based on various priorities, ¶ 0028).
As per claim 3, Jardine et al disclose the circuitry is configured to arrange the new task in the time slot, based on a deadline of the new task and a deadline of the registered task (i.e., the smarttime system's logic may employ the following priority order: (1) events; (2) tasks with a fixed start and end time (e.g., "horizon" tasks that must be done after a specified time but before another specified time); (3) tasks with a fixed end time (e.g., due date), ¶ 0028).
As per claim 4, Jardine et al disclose the circuitry is configured to arrange the new task in the time slot in which the registered task having the deadline later than the deadline of the new task is arranged (i.e., When a task or event is added, removed, or modified in the smarttime calendar, the smarttime system may assign a task having a fixed end time or fixed start time to an available time segment before another task having no fixed start or end time, ¶ 0028).
As per claim 5, Jardine et al disclose the circuitry is configured to arrange the new task in the schedule, based on a priority of the new task and a priority of the registered task (i.e., When tasks or events are added, removed, or modified in the smarttime calendar, the smarttime system may reassign other tasks to available time segments based on various priorities, ¶ 0028).
As per claim 6, Jardine et al disclose the circuitry is configured to arrange the new task in the time slot in which the registered task with the priority lower than the priority of the new task is arranged (i.e., When tasks or events are added, removed, or modified in the smarttime calendar, the smarttime system may reassign other tasks to available time segments based on various priorities, ¶ 0028).
As per claim 7, Jardine et al disclose the circuitry is configured to arrange the new task in the schedule, based on at least one of a deadline, a priority, a difficulty, or a work type of the new task (i.e., the smarttime system's logic may employ the following priority order: (1) events; (2) tasks with a fixed start and end time (e.g., "horizon" tasks that must be done after a specified time but before another specified time); (3) tasks with a fixed end time (e.g., due date), ¶ 0028).
As per claim 8, Jardine et al disclose the circuitry is configured to change the arrangement of the registered task, based on at least one of a deadline, a priority, a difficulty, or a work type of the registered task (i.e., the smarttime system's logic may employ the following priority order: (1) events; (2) tasks with a fixed start and end time (e.g., "horizon" tasks that must be done after a specified time but before another specified time); (3) tasks with a fixed end time (e.g., due date), ¶ 0028).
As per claim 11, Jardine et al disclose the circuitry is configured to receive the new task input based on the registered task similar to the new task (i.e., The user can select a back button 2206 or a forward button 2208 to move backward or forward in the calendar, respectively. A region 2216 can display projects or time horizons during which related tasks or events are scheduled, ¶ 0055).
As per claim 12, Jardine et al disclose the circuitry is configured to: receive progress information of the registered task input by a user; and generate the new task, based on the progress information (i.e., setting to automatically bump tasks indicates to the smarttime system that when the smartphone system starts, it is to automatically move tasks that have not been indicated as completed forward in time so as to reschedule them for completion, ¶ 0032, wherein a user may select a task and changes prior translation 404, add a new event 406, add a new task 408, update an event (e.g. to change its start time, and time, or duration) 410, ¶ 0035).
As per claim 13, Jardine et al disclose the circuitry is configured to generate the new task for adding a work time for the registered task, in a case where the registered task is not completed before a deadline of the registered task (i.e., automatically bump tasks indicates to the smarttime system that when the smartphone system starts, it is to automatically move tasks that have not been indicated as completed forward in time so as to reschedule them for completion, ¶ 0032).
As per claim 14, Jardine et al disclose the circuitry is configured to issue a notification indicating that the new task is not completed before a deadline of the new task or the registered task is not completed before a deadline of the registered task (i.e., the routine determines whether the start time and end time for the task overlap. If they do, the routine at block 1714 sets the new start time of the task to the end time of the task or event that overlaps and then continues at block 1720. Otherwise, the routine continues at decision block 1716, at which the routine determines whether the start time passes the task's deadline (e.g., specified end date). If it does, the routine continues at block 1718 where it returns the deadline status for the task, ¶ 0048).
As per claim 15, Jardine et al disclose the circuitry is configured to issue the notification in a case where any of divisional tasks of the new task is not to be arranged in a time slot before a deadline of the new task, the divisional tasks being obtained by dividing the new task by a preset time unit (i.e., A task or event can also be split into two or more tasks/events intuitively, ¶ 0027, wherein when tasks or events are added, removed, or modified in the smarttime calendar, the smarttime system may reassign other tasks to available time segments based on various priorities. As an example, the smarttime system's logic may employ the following priority order:…(3) tasks with a fixed end time (e.g., due date), ¶ 0028).
As per claim 16, Jardine et al disclose the circuitry is configured to issue the notification in a case where any of divisional tasks of the registered task is not to be arranged in a time slot before a deadline of the registered task, the divisional tasks being obtained by dividing the registered task by a preset time unit (i.e., If any task passes its deadline, the routine continues at block 318. Otherwise, the routine continues at block 324. At block 318, the routine rolls back changes to return tasks to their previously scheduled dates and may display an error message, ¶ 0034).
As per claim 17, Jardine et al disclose an information processing system comprising: the information processing apparatus of claim 1; and the terminal apparatus communicably connected with the information processing apparatus via the network, wherein the terminal apparatus includes terminal apparatus circuitry configured to: transmit the task information of new task to the information processing apparatus; and display a screen including information on the schedule on a display of the terminal apparatus based on the screen data transmitted from the information processing apparatus (i.e., The main smarttime logic 110 may provide a user interface and other logic to enable the smarttime environment to provide services to a user. It may operate with the smarttime prioritization logic 120 to prioritize tasks and events stored in a smarttime calendar, ¶ 0031).
Claims 18 and 19 is rejected based upon the same rationale as the rejection of claim 1, since they are the substantially similar system and method claims, respectively, corresponding to the apparatus claim.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues The amended claim does not recite a mere abstract idea. The Office Action characterized the claims as being directed to "organizing human activity." The applicant respectfully submits that, as amended, the claim is no longer directed to such a generalized abstract idea. The amended claim does not merely recite arranging tasks at a conceptual level. Instead, the amended claim recites a specific computer-implemented task management for generating a rearranged schedule, including: - computer-implemented division of a task by a preset time unit received from a connected terminal apparatus; - automatic arrangement of resulting divisional tasks; and - data transmission to the connected terminal apparatus to display a rearranged schedule. These steps describe how the computer operates on task management including data reception and transmission over the connected multiple apparatuses, not a mental process or a business rule. The claimed multi-stage task/schedule management involves task division, automatic arrangement of the resulting divisional task, and display of a rearranged schedule based on the multiple-machine interactions, which go beyond human activity.
Even assuming arguendo that the claim involves an abstract idea, the amended claim recites additional elements integrated into a practical application, consistent with the 2019 USPTO Guidance ("2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). This operational limitation specifies what parameter is used for task division, when rearrangement occurs, what data objects are affected (divisional tasks vs. registered task), and how a rearranged schedule is generated. This type of unique, multi-stage flow is the kind of computer-specific processing that the Guidance recognizes as a practical application. Amended claim 1 further recites the detailed features of how multiple apparatuses interact with each other to automatically arrange a task input by a user terminal in a schedule and optimize arrangement of tasks in accordance with registration of a new task. For example, see page 3, lines 23-24 of the specification as filed.
The Office Action asserts that the claim merely uses a generic computing component, i.e., processing circuitry. The applicant respectfully submits that the amended claim does not merely recite "processing circuitry" performing generic steps. The claim recites specific task data structures including divisional tasks and registered tasks, and specific scheduling strategy (interrupting arrangement and rearrangement). The claim further recites a terminal apparatus connected via a network, which emphasizes that the invention operates in a distributed computing environment where task management is performed by an information processing apparatus (task management apparatus 10 in the illustrated embodiment) communicated to a terminal apparatus (user terminal 20 in the illustrated embodiment). This reinforces the practical application of the claimed task management.
The additional elements amount to "significantly more" because the recited combination of task management and machine interactions is non-conventional and technologically distinctive. As discussed below, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the claimed features. Thus, the claimed configuration of task division, automatic arrangement of the resulting divisional task, and display of a rearranged schedule in a specific, unique manner is far from routine practice in the art. The claim therefore recites "significantly more" than an abstract idea and is patent- eligible under Step 2B. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As recited on page 3 of the specification, “In the technique of the related art, changing the schedule of the registered task is not considered. For example, even if a new task with a higher priority occurs, the new task is not arranged before a registered task with a lower priority in some cases. In view of this, a technique for recommending the user with a schedule of tasks that the user can work efficiently is described below. The management assistance service in the present embodiment has a function of automatically arranging a task input by a user in a schedule and optimizing arrangement of tasks in accordance with registration of a new task or the progress of the registered task.”
Additionally, page 4 of the specification recites that “The task management apparatus 10 is an information processing apparatus that provides the management assistance service to the user terminals 20 via the communication network N1. The task management apparatus 10 may be implemented by a single information processing apparatus, or may be a system implemented by a plurality of information processing apparatuses. The user terminals 20 are information processing apparatuses to be operated by the users of the information processing system 1. The users of the information processing system 1 use the user terminals 20 to use the management assistance service provided by the task management apparatus 10.”
Moreover, the amended claim language recites “receive task information of a new task input through the terminal apparatus, the task information including a subject of the new task, an estimated time to work the new task, and a preset time unit by which the new task is divided; in response to receiving the task information of the new task from the terminal apparatus, acquire a registered task arranged in a schedule; divide the new task into a plurality of divisional tasks by the preset time unit, each divisional task representing part of the new task and being individually arranged in the schedule; automatically arrange the divisional tasks of the new task in the schedule in an interrupting manner by arranging the divisional tasks in time slots of the schedule in which the registered task is arranged; change an arrangement of the registered task, based on the automatically arranged divisional tasks of the new task, and thereby generate a rearranged schedule; and transmit screen data of the rearranged schedule to the terminal apparatus, the screen data of the rearranged schedule including the automatically arranged divisional tasks displayed with the subject of the new task.”
Following, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claim limitations merely cover managing interactions between people, following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims include processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network.
The processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., processing circuitry connected with a terminal apparatus via a network). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Further, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. §103, or lack thereof, has no bearing on a 35 USC § 101 analysis to determine subject matter eligibility. As discussed in MPEP §2106.05 I, “In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art….[A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).”
Applicant also argues that Jardine et al does not teach or suggest, amended claim 1, including (A) divide the new task into a plurality of divisional tasks by the preset time unit, each divisional task representing part of the new task and being individually arranged in the schedule; and (B) automatically arrange the divisional tasks of the new task in the schedule in an interrupting manner by arranging the divisional tasks in time slots of the schedule in which the registered task is arranged…change an arrangement of the registered task, based on the automatically arranged divisional tasks of the new task, and thereby generate a rearranged schedule.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Jardine et al, in view of Shenk et al, indeed disclose Applicant’s amended claim language, as discussed in the updated rejection.
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 ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights