DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 14, 20 state, “whether the number of threads” as part of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Recommend change “the” in each of those claims to “a number of threads” to resolve the issue.
Claims 2-13, 15-19 are rejected due to their dependency on the independent claims 1, 14 and 20.
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed on April 30, 2026 has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-20.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to abstract ideas. The step 2A analysis details the elements of the claims describing identifying, extracting, deleting, and generating information as part of the method claimed by the invention, and the abstract ideas related to organizing human activity by following rules or instruction or the employment of mental processes, observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. The Examiner concludes that the claims are directed to abstract ideas.
Applicant argues that the claims expressly recite a concrete, computer-implemented memory management technique, that specific operations that change the state of computer memory occur, an substantially prevent a memory load from occurring. The Examiner notes that the claim presents this memory management technique as a simple algorithm with no indication of a technological change. MPEP 2106.05(a) states the requirement for a practical application to “…improve the functioning of the computer itself.” In this case, an algorithm that monitors volume up to a threshold and a time interval up to a threshold is certainly not an original idea to this invention, but rather prudent application of a means to conserve memory. It is not apparent that the technology or structure of the computer has changed, but the software applied enforces limits to maintain a workable memory level. The inventive nature of this memory management technique appears to be conventional vice a product of the invention, i.e., application of a known memory conservation technique. In the absence of an improvement to the technology with technical detail, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed
to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-20 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-20 are directed to a process (method), machine (system), and product/article of manufacture, which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of extracting schedule-related content from various media to include texts, e-mails, web pages or images, etc., for the purposes of updating and maintaining a schedule.
Claim 14 discloses a method, comprising: based on reception of at least one content, identifying a type of first application corresponding to the at least one content, identifying a type of first application corresponding to the at least one content; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
extracting information related to schedule from the received at least one
content based on the type of the first application and storing the information related to schedule extracted from the at least one content, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
identifying, in response to execution of a second application for registering
a schedule, a first time point at which the information related to schedule is extracted and a second time point at which the second application is executed, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
identifying whether the number of threads that occurred between the first time point and the second time point exceeds a threshold value, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
deleting the information related to schedule or refrain from loading the information related to schedule based on a determination that a time interval from the first time point to the second time point exceeds the time threshold and the number of threads that occurred between the first time point and the second time point exceeds the threshold value, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
generating at least one recommendation information for registering the schedule based on a determination that the time interval from the first time point to the second time point does not exceed the time threshold or the number of threads that occurred between the first time point and the second time point does not exceed the threshold value, and displaying the generated at least one recommendation information, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
wherein, when the number of threads does not exceed the threshold value, the user intends to register the schedule, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method to receive first content and acting within the configured time in response to the content and preparing information sharing in response to a schedule in the first content, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 15), assigning a first score based on first content in response to schedule registration, notifying in response to the cumulative score exceeding a first threshold score, and information sharing in response to user input to the notification, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 16), identifying information related to schedule in response to the schedule and generating a recommendation based on usage pattern and history related to the schedule-related information, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 17), assigning a second score to a first phrase in response to identifying the first phrase as a schedule and generating a recommendation based on the first phrase in response to a first phrase exceeding a second threshold score, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 18), and taking action on a schedule registration event and generating a recommendation based on the schedule related information in response to the occurrence of the schedule registration event and where the occurrence of the event detects a schedule registration instruction for registering one schedule, while making a schedule, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion – claim 19).
Each of these claimed limitations involve organizing human activity, following rules or instructions, and employ mental processes involving observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion,
Claims 1-13 and 20 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified in claims 14-19.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-20 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as electronic device comprising:
at least one processor; a memory operatively connected to the display and the at least one processor, a first application, a second application, an information-sharing application, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, computer programs, a user interface, a display, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-20 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 were previously not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1822, (michael.borowski@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights