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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
112
The portions of the specification that Applicant relies on for support does not teach the term used in the specification. The rejection is maintained. Appropriate Correction is required.
101
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees. The claimed invention is directed to displaying data in a user calendaring system. Because Applicant’s claims recite abstract steps with additional elements that do not amount to significantly more, the claims remain directed to the abstract idea.
Applicant again asserts analogy between the instant Application and Example 37. The Examiner maintains the arguments in the most recent office action. “Example 37 was found to be eligible because the system used learned behavior of a user over time in order to move most used icons to a more convenient location. The claims of the instant application do not suggest the use of machine learning in order to arrange a display to result in an improved display. The claims of the instant application merely respond to user input and displays information in response to said input. This is vastly different fact pattern than that of Example 37.” The Examiner has reproduced the rationale f. or eligibility for Applicant’s convenience:
The claim recites the combination of additional elements of receiving, via a GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, a processor for performing the determining step, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use. The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas 2019-01-07 3 to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception.
Again, as previously stated eligibility in this example is based on the learned icon data. The only similarities between the two claim sets are the recitation of a display.
Applicant further argues that the invention layers calendar data and therefore it is unconventional. Is it Application’s contention that Applicant has invented the concept of overlaying information on a calendar? The Examiner has previously cited references that describe this general concept. Applicant’s claimed amendments further limit the abstract steps and do not show a practical application. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. While Applicant’s specification mentions a Z-axis, and does not elaborate on what this is, the amended claims describe a Z-formation. There is no support for this term, nor is there any description in the original specification as filed. Appropriate Correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
detecting, an event associated with an electronic data organizer of a user;
presenting, a control menu associated with the event, the control menu;
receiving, from the user, input directed to the event attendance toggle;
assigning, and based on the received input, the event to a first layer or a second layer of the electronic data organizer, wherein events in the first layer are positioned in front of, and vertically offset in the Z-formation, events in the second layer;
designating, and based on the received input, an availability state of the user for a duration of the event, wherein the availability state corresponds to an available state or an unavailable state;
automatically updating, to display the event in the first layer or the second layer based on the received input; and
broadcasting, the availability state of the user to at least one other user of the data organizer application.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of business relations, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “data organization application, processor and presenting a control menu comprising event attendance toggle; automatically updating a rendering of an electronic data organizer, controlling a display position and occlusion relationship of the event relative to other events based on the visual stacking order defined by the first layer or the second layer; wherein the broadcasting comprises selectively causing availability information associated with the event to be propagated for display in at least one additional electronic data organizer associated with the user or a remote electronic data organizer of at least one other user; the first layer and the second layer correspond to distinct rendering layers of a graphical user interface of the data organizer application that define a visual stacking order for concurrently displayed events”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, “data organization application, processor and presenting a control menu comprising event attendance toggle; automatically updating a rendering of an electronic data organizer”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
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);
- (processor, memory, non-transitory computer-readable medium)
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, -(data organization application)
mere data gathering/post solution activity in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, (presenting a control menu comprising event attendance toggle; automatically updating a rendering of an electronic data organizer; controlling a display position and occlusion relationship of the event relative to other events based on the visual stacking order defined by the first layer or the second layer; wherein the broadcasting comprises selectively causing availability information associated with the event to be propagated for display in at least one additional electronic data organizer associated with the user or a remote electronic data organizer of at least one other user; the first layer and the second layer correspond to distinct rendering layers of a graphical user interface of the data organizer application that define a visual stacking order for concurrently displayed events;)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than: mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; mere data gathering/post solution activity; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception see MPEP 2106.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; moreover, while claim 6 describes a tag control bar, tags, processor; 8-9 describe a processor, electronic data organizer application, 9 describes a lens, 10- electronic data organizer application, these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies. This analysis also applies to their analogous claims.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights