DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office Action in response to the amendment filed 10/15/2025.
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
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on pages 12-13 of the remarks that the human mind is not equipped to perform the claimed steps and cannot be considered a mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the October 2019 Updated Guidance and under the analysis of claims under step 2A of the Alice framework, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the present claims are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process. Under the 2019 PEG, the “mental processes” grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Per the October 2019 Updated Guidance examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
Applicant submits on page 13 of the remarks that even assuming arguendo, the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application in a matter that imposes meaningful limit to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant submits on page 15 of the remarks that the combination of referenced does not teach, suggest, or render obvious at least, for example, the features of “the RPA agent is an automated software application that observes an application performing an action, and performs automation by repeating the action ... determining, by the artificial intelligence engine, based on the minimizing of the scheduling conflicts, a recommended schedule of workflow completion for tasks related to topics of the electronic meeting," as recited in amended independent claim 1.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Adler [0004-0005] disclose systems for automatic real-time moderation of meetings, further Mishra discloses a recommended schedule in at least [0018]; [0020-0021].
Applicant submits that Adler does not describe an RPA agent in which is an automated software application that observes an application performing an action and performs automation by repeating the observed action. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Adler [0004-0005] disclose systems for automatic real-time moderation of meetings.
Applicant submits on page 18 of the remarks that Mishra does not teach or suggest determining, by the artificial intelligence engine, based on the minimizing of the scheduling conflicts, a recommended schedule of workflow completion for tasks related to topics of the electronic meeting, where the scheduling conflicts are between the participants of the electronic meeting and detected by the RPA agent. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Adler discloses the use of artificial intelligence in at least [0014]; [0015].
Applicant submits on page 19 of the remarks that the combination of Adler and Mishra does not teach or suggest at least the features of "the RPA agent is an automated software application that observes an application performing an action, and performs automation by repeating the action ... determining, by the artificial intelligence engine, based on the minimizing of the scheduling conflicts, a recommended schedule of workflow completion for tasks related to topics of the electronic meeting," as recited in amended independent claim 1. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claims 1-20, the independent claims (claims 1, 8 and 15) are directed, in part, to a computer program product, a method and a computing device for collaborative scheduling. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the January 2019 Guidance, claims 1-7 are directed to a computer program product containing one or more computer readable storage media, with falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture, claims 8-14 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process and claims 15-20 are directed to a computing device which falls under the statutory category of a machine. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental process which includes observations or evaluations.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to operating a robotic process automation (RPA) agent in a background of an electronic meeting, wherein the RPA agent is an automated software application that observes an application performing an action, and performs automation by repeating the action; detecting, by the RPA agent in real-time, schedule-based topics and vocalized scheduling conflicts from spoken conversation of a plurality of participants in the electronic meeting; receiving, from the RPA agent, data related to the detected schedule-based topics and the detected vocalized scheduling conflicts; forwarding the received data to an artificial intelligence engine; minimizing scheduling conflicts between the plurality of participants by prioritizing schedules of key participants of the plurality of participants over schedules of non-key participants of the plurality of participants, wherein the scheduling conflicts are associated with the detected vocalized scheduling conflicts and the detected schedule-based topics, and the minimizing is performed based on at least roles of the plurality of participants: determining, by the artificial intelligence engine, based on the minimizing of the scheduled conflicts, a recommended schedule of workflow completion for tasks related to topics of the electronic meeting; and displaying, by the RPA, the recommended schedule. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers an observation or evaluation, then it falls under the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As per Step 2A - Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media, artificial intelligence engine, automation agent, computing device, processor, teleconferencing program, memory. These additional element in both steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic computer function of receiving and storing data) such that these elements amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in at least figures 1 and 2 and related text and [0030-0032] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “Computing environment 100 includes an example of an environment for the execution of at least some of the computer code involved in performing the inventive methods, such as the improved collaborative scheduling code 200. The improved collaborative scheduling code 200 may include a collaborative scheduling recommendation engine 240 and a robotic process automation (RPA) agent 250 that cooperate to generate recommended schedules for the collaboration of multiple parties working together on a project or set of dependent tasks. The collaborative scheduling recommendation engine 240 may operate as a backend process that receives data from the RPA agent 250 that is actively listening to conversations amongst the collaborating parties. The collaborative scheduling recommendation engine 240 and/or RPA agent 250 may operate according to one or more of the methods disclosed in further detail below. In addition to collaborative scheduling code 200, computing environment 100 includes, for example, computer 101, wide area network (WAN) 102, end user device (EUD) 103, remote server 104, public cloud 105, and private cloud 106. In this embodiment, computer 101 includes processor set 110 (including processing circuitry 120 and cache 121), communication fabric 111, volatile memory 112, persistent storage 113 (including operating system 122 and collaborative scheduling code 200, as identified above), peripheral device set 114 (including user interface (UI) device set 123, storage 124, and Internet of Things (IoT) sensor set 125), and network module 115. Remote server 104 includes remote database 130. Public cloud 105 includes gateway 140, cloud orchestration module 141, host physical machine set 142, virtual machine set 143, and container set 144. COMPUTER 101 may take the form of a desktop computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, smart phone, smart watch or other wearable computer, mainframe computer, quantum computer or any other form of computer or mobile device now known or to be developed in the future that is capable of running a program, accessing a network or querying a database, such as remote database 130. As is well understood in the art of computer technology, and depending upon the technology, performance of a computer-implemented method may be distributed among multiple computers and/or between multiple locations. On the other hand, in this presentation of computing environment 100, detailed discussion is focused on a single computer, specifically computer 101, to keep the presentation as simple as possible. Computer 101 may be located in a cloud, even though it is not shown in a cloud in Figure 1. On the other hand, computer 101 is not required to be in a cloud except to any extent as may be affirmatively indicated. PROCESSOR SET 110 includes one, or more, computer processors of any type now known or to be developed in the future. For the instant disclosure, the processor set 110 includes for example a central processing unit (CPU) and an accelerator. In some embodiments, a different type of processing element may be used instead of the CPU, (for example, a GPU or other process dedicated/specialized unit). Processing circuitry 120 may be distributed over multiple packages, for example, multiple, coordinated integrated circuit chips. Processing circuitry 120 may implement multiple processor threads and/or multiple processor cores. Cache 121 is memory that is located in the processor chip package(s) and is typically used for data or code that should be available for rapid access by the threads or cores running on processor set 110. Cache memories are typically organized into multiple levels depending upon relative proximity to the processing circuitry. Alternatively, some, or all, of the cache for the processor set may be located “off chip.” In some computing environments, processor set 110 may be designed for working with qubits and performing quantum computing.” Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As per Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. When considered individually, these claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements and the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
The dependent claims further refine the abstract idea. These claims do not provide a meaningful linking to the judicial exception. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
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.
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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2020/0279567 (hereinafter; Adler) in view of US Pub. No. 2025/0148387 (hereinafter; Mishra).
Regarding claims 1/8/15, Adler discloses:
A computer program product; a computer implemented method; a computing device for electronic collaborative scheduling, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, to execute operations comprising: operating a robotic process automation (RPA) agent in a background of an electronic meeting; wherein the RPA agent is an automated software application that observes an application performing an action, and performs automation by repeating the action; (Adler [0004-0005] disclose systems for automatic real-time moderation of meetings using a meeting moderator bot.)
detecting, by the RPA agent in real-time, schedule-based topics and vocalized scheduling conflicts from spoken conversations of a plurality of participants in the electronics meeting; (Adler [0121] discloses vocal commands and vocal cues.)
receiving, from the RPA agent, data related to the detected schedule-based topics and the detected vocalized scheduling conflicts; (Adler [0005] discloses a Meeting Moderator Bot monitors audio conversations in a meeting, and analyzes their textual equivalent.) forwarding the received data to an artificial intelligence engine; (Adler discloses the use of artificial intelligence in at least [0014]; [0015].)
minimizing scheduling conflicts between the plurality of participants by prioritizing schedules of key participants of the plurality of participants over schedules of non-key participants of the plurality of participants, wherein the scheduling conflicts are associated with the detected vocalized scheduling conflicts and the detected schedule-based topics, and the minimizing is performed based on roles of the plurality of participants: (Adler [0076] discloses participants role and importance.)
Although Adler discloses collaborative scheduling and using artificial intelligence, Adler does not specifically disclose a recommended schedule. However, Mishra discloses the following limitations:
determining, by the artificial intelligence engine, based on the minimizing of the scheduling conflicts, a recommended schedule of workflow completion for tasks related to topics of the electronic meeting; and displaying, by the RPA, the recommended schedule. (Mishra discloses a recommended schedule in at least [0018]; [0020-0021].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for managing meetings of Adler with the system for approving pending requests in a contact center of Mishra in order to approve generated schedule recommendations (Mishra abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 2/9/16, Although Adler discloses collaborative scheduling and using artificial intelligence, Adler does not specifically disclose a recommended schedule. However, Mishra discloses the following limitations:
The computer program product of claim 1; the computer implemented method of claim 8; the computing device of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: continuously monitoring the electronic meeting for additional data related to detected schedule-based topics; determining a revised recommended schedule based on the data related to the detected schedule-based topics; and displaying, by the RPA agent, the revised recommended schedule. (Mishra discloses a recommended schedule in at least [0018]; [0020-0021].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for managing meetings of Adler with the system for approving pending requests in a contact center of Mishra in order to approve generated schedule recommendations (Mishra abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 3/10, Adler discloses:
The computer program product of claim 1; the computer implemented method of claim 8, wherein the received data includes verbal speech, typed text, and individual personal calendars. (Adler [0014] discloses The present invention provides systems and method that may utilize, for example, voice transcription (speech to text engine), speaker identification, textual/contextual analysis, Natural Language Processing (NLP) or Natural Language Understanding (NLU), automatic retrieval of additional information from the Internet and/or from a local repository (e.g., an organizational or enterprise repository) and/or from third-party databases, as well as artificial intelligence (AI) and/or other functionalities, in order to determine and analyze “who said what” in a meeting or a discussion or a presentation, and to generate a visual presentation that includes textual and/or graphical components that correspond to key elements that were discussed or presented, and/or that further expand on such key elements; thereby analyzing what was said or discussed in a meeting, and automatically generating from it a visual layer that corresponds to it; [0025] discloses a calendar application.)
Regarding claims 4/11/17, Adler discloses:
The computer program product of claim 1; the computer implemented method of claim 8; the computing device of claim 15, wherein the artificial intelligence engine determines an intent to express speech related to schedule availability from one or more of the plurality of participants. (Adler [0024] discloses A speech-to-text converter 107 may process all the audio from all sources, and may generate a textual transcript of the discussions held in the meeting. Optionally, a Natural Language Processing (NLP) unit 108 may perform initial analysis or the transcript, in order to improve it and/or to fine-tune it or to remove ambiguities or to make corrections and/or detect the intent in a phrase and fill the slots in such an intent based on a pre-configured intent structure, its key slots, and format.)
Regarding claims 5/12/18, Adler discloses:
The computer program product of claim 1; the computer-implemented method of claim 8; the computing device of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise determining an individual source associated with an instance of the received data. (Adler discloses different sources of information. See at least [0027-0028].)
Regarding claims 6/13/19, Although Adler discloses collaborative scheduling and using artificial intelligence, Adler does not specifically disclose a recommended schedule. However, Mishra discloses the following limitations:
The computer program product of claim 1; the computer-implemented method of claim 8; the computing device of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: and the displaying the recommended schedule includes a display of at least one of the minimized scheduling conflicts. (See at least Mishra [0018-0021]; [0049].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for managing meetings of Adler with the system for approving pending requests in a contact center of Mishra in order to approve generated schedule recommendations (Mishra abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Regarding claims 7/14/20, Although Adler discloses collaborative scheduling and using artificial intelligence, Adler does not specifically disclose a recommended schedule. However, Mishra discloses the following limitations:
The computer program product of claim 1; the computer-implemented method of claim 8; the computing device of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: displaying a confirmation of an acceptance of the recommended schedule to the plurality of participants; receiving a declination of acceptance by one or more of the plurality of participants; continuously monitoring the electronic meeting for additional data related to the detected schedule-based topics; determining a revised recommended schedule based on the data related to schedule-based topics; and displaying by the RPA agent, the revised recommended schedule. (See Mishra [0037]; [0053].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system for managing meetings of Adler with the system for approving pending requests in a contact center of Mishra in order to approve generated schedule recommendations (Mishra abstract) because the references are analogous since they both fall within Applicant's field of endeavor and are reasonably pertinent to the problem with which Applicant is concerned.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 FRANCIS Z SANTIAGO-MERCED whose telephone number is (571)270-5562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-4:30pm EST.
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, BRIAN EPSTEIN can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
/FRANCIS Z. SANTIAGO MERCED/Examiner, Art Unit 3625