DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/673,750. In response to Examiner’s action that is mail dated January 9, 2026, Applicant submitted arguments and amendments that are mail date May 11, 2026. Applicant amended claim(s) 1-20. Claims 1-20 are examined below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 30, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. The claims 1-20 are amended.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C.101 rejection, the amendments are not persuasive. The claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C.103 rejection, the amendments are persuasive. The claims 1-20 are allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed herein below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
On pages 12-17 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C.101 arguments, the Applicant traverses the Examiner’s rejection.
Applicant traverses claim 1 is not directed merely to “managing communication sessions” or “mental concepts,” but instead recites a specifical technical implementation for runtime management of meeting participation using distinct data structures, permission-controlled system architecture, time-based access control, and automated transition control.
Claim one recites significantly more than merely evaluating meeting times or displaying calendar information.
Step 2A, Prong Two the claims recite a specific permission-controlled dual calendar architecture in which a secondary calendar data structure is maintained separately from a primary calendar and is governed by different application-level access permissions. The amended claims impose concrete operational constraints on how the computing system stores, modifies, and controls meeting related data. The limitations define a specific system architecture and operational configuration rather than merely using a generic computer as a tool. The specification explains technical improvements associated with this architecture. The specification describes improvements to system operations and security integrity, not merely improvements to an abstract business practice.
Step 2B, the claims recites a non-conventional and ordered combination of elements.
PNG
media_image1.png
391
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The limitations are not generic computer functions viewed in isolation, a specific arrangement of permission-controlled data structures and runtime operational controls that improve operation of the computing system itself. The claims contain significantly more than the alleged abstract idea and are therefore patent-eligible under Step 2B.
Applicant therefore respectfully, submits that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 should be withdrawn with respect to Claims 1-20.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments. Examiner submits at step 2A prong one claim 1 (and similarly claim 8 and claim 15) describe a method and system, that is an abstract idea, where a user takes a meeting from a primary calendar and assigns only a shorter attendance window to that meeting in a separate secondary calendar is managing a calendar - scheduling. Scheduling is an abstract concept that is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior.
Furthermore, the claim limitations recite a mental concept. The claims recite receiving input data including start time of the secondary meeting, receiving end time of the secondary meeting, and storing the information on a calendar. This concept can be completed mentally by a human that is using a pen and pencil. The claims recite a mental concept – evaluation and observation, and therefore are an abstract concept.
The claims recite an abstract concept, and therefore, are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A Prong One.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments at Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims recite a specific permission-controlled dual calendar architecture in which a secondary calendar data structure is maintained separately from a primary calendar and is governed by different application-level access permissions. The claims describe permission-controlled access architecture, but do not recite the additional elements that are completing the permission-control. As recited permission-control can be completed by a human passing a paper calendar for viewing and editing. The instant specification [093] discuss calendar applications but does not discuss additional elements. The claims do not recite an improvement that is rooted in technology. The claims are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims are not integrated into a practical application at Step 2A Prong Two.
Applicant is encouraged to the clarify the permission-controlled dual calendar architecture as supported by the specification.
At Step 2B, the claim recitation of using a computer to display the calendar and using permission-control access does not amount to significantly more. In the dependent claims, the drag and drop function are recited at a high-level. Applicant is encouraged to discuss the additional elements that are associated with the permission-control architecture and the drag and drop functionality.
(Examiner points Applicant to instant specification [054] to expand on conflict mode and control elements as supported by the specification.)
(Examiner point Applicant to instant specification [072] backend data structure and triggering.)
Regarding an improvement, the claims do not recite improvements that are rooted in technology. As discussed above, when considered as a whole, it is “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The amended claims are not patent eligible. The claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
(Examiner points the Applicant to the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples for consideration.)
(Examiner points Applicant to independent claim 1, claim 2, claim 7 and instant specification [054]. Applicant can request an Examiner interview using the Automated Interview Request.)
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
On pages 17-22 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C.103 arguments, the Applicant traverses the Examiner’s rejection.
Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Lightbody in view of Adams. As amended, independent Claim 1 recites numerous features that are neither disclosed nor suggested by the cited references, either individually or in combination.
The Office Action states that it would have been obvious to combine Lightbody with Adams "to reduce lost productivity and increase participant engagement." However, even assuming such a motivation, neither reference teaches or suggests the claimed runtime permission architecture and automated control operations recited in amended Claim 1. The proposed combination would, at most, yield scheduling adjustments with meeting notifications.
The cited references do not disclose controlling access to files, streams, or meeting content based on shortened-duration participation intervals defined in a secondary calendar. Lightbody merely modifies event durations, while Adams merely provides meeting-related notifications. Neither reference even contemplates dynamic time-based permission control tied to runtime participation intervals.
The cited portions of Lightbody and Adams fail to disclose or suggest multiple core features of amended Claim 1, including the claimed conflict-mode architecture, permission- controlled dual-calendar data structures, runtime access-control operations, and automatic communication-session transition control.
Applicant therefore respectfully submits that the Claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 should be withdrawn.
Independent Claims 8 and 15 were amended to include corresponding limitations directed to the same conflict-mode architecture, permission-controlled secondary calendar structures, runtime access-control operations, and automatic transition features discussed above with respect to Claim 1.
The dependent claims further recite additional narrowing technical limitations not disclosed or suggested by the cited references.
Examiner respectfully acknowledges the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments. The closest prior art Lightbody (US 2024/0,095,682 A1) in view of Adams (EP 3,352,487 A1), Kreitler (EP 2024/0,095,682 A1), and Lu (US 12,118,513 B1). were used to reject the claims mail dated May 24, 2024. However, the combined teachings of these references do not teach the specific ordered sequence of the limitations of claim 8 (and similarly claims 1 and 15) for the claims that are mail dated May 11, 2026. Lightbody, Adams, Kreitler, and Lu either alone or in combination, do not teach or disclose, “… associating the primary meeting object with a time slot of a template defining a secondary calendar to cause the system to generate a secondary meeting object defining a shortened duration of attendance for the primary meeting object for the user; receiving input data including information of a start time of the secondary meeting object and information of a duration or an end time of the secondary meeting object, wherein the duration of the secondary meeting object is less than a duration of the primary meeting object; operating the data processing system in a conflict mode in which modification of the primary calendar is restricted and modification of the secondary calendar is permitted; in response to the input data including the start time and information of the duration or the end time of the secondary meeting object: storing the start time of the secondary meeting object and the duration or the end time of the secondary meeting object in a secondary calendar[[,]] comprising a data structure distinct from the primary calendar, the secondary calendar being maintained with access permissions that restrict modification by a calendaring application and permit modification by a communication application; … controlling access, by the data processing system, to content associated with the primary meeting object based on the shortened duration defined by the secondary meeting object; and automatically triggering, based on a comparison between a current time and the end time of the secondary meeting object, a transition of the user from the primary meeting to another meeting or session …” as recited in claims 1,8 and 15.
Examiner consider Ebener, Rodden, and Timehero in combination with Lightbody, Adams, Kreitler, and Lu. Examiner cites to references Ebner (US 2021/0,264,377 A1), Rodden (US 2019/0,334,907 A1) and Timehero (2024, What is Adaptive Task Planning). Ebener [041], [085], [0125] teach calendar permissions. Rodden [Figure 24], [Figure 29], [031], [097], [0133], [0202] teach conflict, availability, and adjusting schedules. Timehero discuss large language models. These references do not teach the specific ordered sequence of the amended limitations.
Moreover, since the specific ordered combined sequence of claim elements recited in claim 1, 8, and 15 cannot be found in the cited prior art, other than the Assignees art, and can only be found as recited in Applicant’s Specification, any combination of the cited references and/or additional reference(s) to teach all the claim elements, including the features discussed above, would be the result of impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Accordingly, any combination of Lightbody, Adams, Kreitler, Lu, Ebener, Rodden, and Timehero and/or any other additional reference(s) would be improper to teach the claimed invention.
Examiner finds the Applicant’s amendments persuasive. The pending claim 1-20 are allowable.
(Applicant is encouraged to the clarify the limitations “receive input data including information of a start time of the secondary meeting object and information of a duration or an end time of the secondary meeting object” so that the claims are not interpreted as Markush claims) (citing to several sources that describe Markush groups)- See MPEP 706.03.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 recites the limitation "the data processing system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-7 are process.
Claim(s) 8-14 are machine.
Claim(s) 15-20 are manufacture.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim 8 (and similarly claim 1 and 15) recites, “… cause … a number of primary meeting objects retrieved from a primary calendar, … for selecting a primary meeting object from the primary meeting objects for causing and associating the primary meeting object with a time slot of a template defining a secondary calendar … to generate a secondary meeting object; receive input data including information of a start time of the secondary meeting object and information of a duration or an end time of the secondary meeting object, wherein the duration of the secondary meeting object is less than a duration of the primary meeting object that corresponds to secondary meeting object; operate … in a conflict mode in which modification of the primary calendar is restricted and modification of the secondary calendar is permitted; in response to the input data including information of the start time of the secondary meeting object and the duration or the end time of the secondary meeting object: store the start time of the secondary meeting object and the duration or the end time of the secondary meeting object in a secondary calendar comprising a data structure distinct from the primary calendar, the secondary calendar being maintained with access permissions that restrict modification by a calendaring application and permit modification …; generate status data by accessing the primary meeting object to obtain identities of attendees of the primary meeting object and accessing the secondary meeting object of the secondary calendar to obtain the start time of the secondary meeting object and the duration or the end time of the secondary meeting object; update meeting objects accessible by the attendees of the primary meeting object with the status data, wherein the status data indicates that the user has accepted an invitation for the primary meeting object, the status data and further indicating, based on the duration of the secondary meeting object being less than the duration of the primary meeting object, indicates that an attendance duration of the user is less than the duration of the primary meeting object; controlling access … to content associated with the primary meeting object based on the shortened duration defined by the secondary meeting object; and automatically triggering, based on a comparison between a current time and the end time of the secondary meeting object, a transition of the user from the primary meeting to another meeting or session. Claims 1-20 in view of the claim limitations recite an abstract idea of a user taking a meeting from a primary calendar and assigning a shorter attendance window to that meeting in a separate secondary calendar which is managing a calendar – scheduling. Scheduling is an abstract concept that is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior.
Furthermore, the claim limitations recite a mental concept. The claims recite receiving input data including start time of the secondary meeting, receiving end time of the secondary meeting, and storing the information on a calendar. This concept can be completed mentally by a human that is using a pen and pencil. The claims recite a mental concept – evaluation and observation, and therefore, are an abstract concept.
The claims recite an abstract concept, and therefore, are directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A Prong One.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “A system for managing a customized schedule for a user to attend a meeting defined by a primary calendar, the user scheduled to attend a portion of the meeting according to a shortened attendance period defined by a secondary calendar, the system comprising: one or more processing units; and a computer-readable storage medium having encoded thereon computer-executable instructions to cause the one or more processing units to”, “a display of a user interface,” “the user interface further comprising control elements,” “the data processing system,”
“by a communication application,” in claim 8 (and similarly claim 1); “A computer-readable storage medium having encoded thereon computer-executable instructions for managing a customized schedule for a user to attend a meeting defined by a primary calendar, the user scheduled to attend a portion of the meeting according to a shortened attendance period defined by a secondary calendar, the computer- executable instructions causing the one or more processing units of a system to,” in claim 15; however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f)
The dependent claims recite the additional elements:
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16: the user interface includes a template having a graphical; drag-and-drop input gesture of moving a graphical element representing the primary meeting object to a graphical element;
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17: an additional secondary meeting object;
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18: a first timeline template from a plurality of timeline templates
Claim(s) 5, 12,19: displays control elements, displays video streams, a communication session, displaying a notification on a computing device of the user
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20: a communication application; control elements
Claim(s) 7, 14: the large language model, the template parameters
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Dependent claims 2-7 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. The claims 1-7 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 9-14 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 8. The claims 8-14 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16-20 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 15. The claims 15-20 are not patent eligible.
Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, & 16-20 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sen (1997, Satisfying user preferences while negotiating meetings) discloses meeting preferences, balancing concerns, proposing and accepting meeting times that satisfy user preferences.)
Maeda (JP 2025055152) discloses adjusting schedules and automatically finding available time be referencing schedule and adjusting through chat.)
Brzozowski (2006, groupTime: preference based group scheduling) teaches a machine learning approaches that implicitly learns how users prefer to schedule time and then attempts to predict their responses.
Trello (2021, Trello helps teams move work forward) teaches drag and drop functions for project management tasks and team hub.
Neustaedter (2009, The Calendar is Crucial" Coordination Awareness through the Family Calendar) teaches maintaining multiple calendars.
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 THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270- 5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 /PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights