DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the Request for Continued Examination filed 05/11/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-22 are currently pending in the application and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Applicant submits on page 15 that the amended claim is not directed to merely organizing human activity or managing interpersonal behavior. Examiner notes that under step 2A of the analysis of claims per the Alice framework, if a claim limitation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Unlike the claims held patent eligible in Enfish v. Microsoft and McRO v. Bandai Namco, the present claims are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. 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. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
Applicant submits on page 17 that even assuming arguendo… amended claim 1 integrates any alleged judicial exception 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.
Applicant submits on page 18 of the remarks that the amended claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. Examiner notes that when determining whether a claim recites significantly more in Step 2B the analysis takes into consideration whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines." Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 658, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1007 (2010) (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972)). See MPEP 2106.05(c). Furthermore, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
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) 1-2, 4-22 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 1-2, 4-22, the independent claims (claims 1, 8 and 15) are directed, in part, to a system, a method and a computer-readable medium for providing notifications indicating meeting activity of users. Step 1 – First pursuant to step 1 in the eligibility analysis, claims 1-2, 4-7, 21-22 are directed to a method comprising a series of steps which falls under the statutory category of a process, claims 8-14 are directed to a system which falls under the statutory category of a machine, and claims 15-20 are directed to a computer readable storage medium which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture. However, these claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes managing personal behavior or interactions between people.
As per Step 2A - Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims are directed, in part, to providing in-meeting notifications indicating activity of a user having a customized schedule for a meeting, the method comprising: accessing, during an ongoing communication session corresponding to the meeting, a primary calendar storing a primary meeting object defining a duration of a primary meeting; accessing, during the ongoing communication session corresponding to the meeting, a secondary calendar storing a secondary meeting object that is at least in part overlapping with a time of the d object, the secondary meeting object indicating a personalized interval for the user that is shorter than the duration defined in the primary meeting object, the secondary meeting object defining a start time and an end time of the personalized interval, wherein the primary calendar and the secondary calendar both include the user; maintaining, by the data processing system, a backend data structure comprising a record associated with the user, the record including: a meeting-runtime timestamp corresponding to a current running time of the primary meeting, a personalized interval field storing the start time and the end time of the secondary meeting object, a user-state flag indicating whether the user is in a pre-arrival state, an in-meeting state, or a departure-imminent state, and a user-interface state indicator associated with a display state of a meeting user interface for the user; monitoring, during the ongoing communication session, the meeting-runtime timestamp of the backend data structure to determine that the current running time of the primary meeting is within a threshold relative to the start time or the end time specified in the personalized interval field; updating the backend data structure in response to determining that the threshold has been reached, including: updating the meeting-runtime timestamp, and transitioning the user-state flag from one of the pre-arrival state, the in-meeting state, or the departure-imminent state to another state based on the current running time relative to the personalized interval; and in response to transitioning the user-state flag, automatically triggering, by the data processing system a state transition of the meeting user interface for the user by updating the user-interface state indicator, including causing the meeting user interface to display a visual indicator associated with an identifier of the user indicating that the user will arrive at or leave the meeting. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” 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: data processing system, graphical element, system, processing units, computer readable storage medium, computer-readable storage medium, user interface. These additional elements 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 figure 1 and related text and [0091-0093] to understand that the invention may be implemented in a generic environment that “it should be appreciated that the logical operations described herein are implemented (1) as a sequence of computer implemented acts or program modules running on a computing system and/or (2) as interconnected machine logic circuits or circuit modules within the computing system. The implementation is a matter of choice dependent on the performance and other requirements of the computing system. Accordingly, the logical operations described herein are referred to variously as states, operations, structural devices, acts, or modules. These operations, structural devices, acts, and modules may be implemented in software, in firmware, in special purpose digital logic, and any combination thereof. For example, the operations of the routine are described herein as being implemented, at least in part, by an application, component and/or circuit, such as a device module that can be included in any one of the memory components disclosed herein, including but not limited to RAM. In some configurations, the device module can be a dynamically linked library (DLL), a statically linked library, functionality enabled by an application programing interface (API), a compiled program, an interpreted program, a script or any other executable set of instructions. Data, such as input data or a signal from a sensor, received by the device module can be stored in a data structure in one or more memory components. The data can be retrieved from the data structure by addressing links or references to the data structure. Although the following illustration refers to the components depicted in the present application, it can be appreciated that the operations of the routine may be also implemented in many other ways. For example, the routine may be implemented, at least in part, by a processor or circuit of another remote computer (which can be a server) or a local processor or circuit of a local computer (which can be a client device receiving a message or a client device sending the message). Any aspect of the routine, which can include the generation of a prompt, communication of any of the messages with the prompt to an NLP algorithm, use of an NLP algorithm, or a display of a result generated by an NLP algorithm, can be performed on either a device sending a message, a device receiving a message, or on a server managing communication of the messages for a thread. In addition, one or more of the operations of the routine may alternatively or additionally be implemented, at least in part, by a chipset working alone or in conjunction with other software modules. Any service, circuit or application suitable for providing input data indicating the state of any device may be used in operations described herein.” 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-22 are allowable over prior art but have other pending rejections as indicated above. Although the prior art made of record discloses systems and methods for providing meeting notifications and communicating meeting information, the prior art does not specifically disclose the sequence of steps as recited in the claims: “…maintaining… a backend data structure comprising a record associated with the user, the record including: a meeting-runtime timestamp corresponding to a current running time of the primary meeting, a personalized interval field storing the start time and the end time of the secondary meeting object, a user-state flag indicating whether the user is in a pre-arrival state, an in-meeting state, or a departure-imminent state, and a user-interface state indicator associated with a display state of a meeting user interface for the user; monitoring, during the ongoing communication session, the meeting-runtime timestamp of the backend data structure to determine that the current running time of the primary meeting is within a threshold relative to the start time or the end time specified in the personalized interval field; updating the backend data structure in response to determining that the threshold has been reached..”
The claims would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office Action.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights