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 .
Acknowledgments
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 1 and 3 are pending.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 11/13/2025.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues a technical solution/improvement on page 4, Applicant states
These important steps clarify that the meeting confirmation information or the meeting change information are used in a practical application that is very specific to the technical field and provides a focused technical solution to the problem of how to efficiently schedule a mutual meeting using a social networking service.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Efficiently scheduling a meeting is a business problem and not a technical problem. The Applicant’s specification states in para 0001, The present invention relates to a method for scheduling a meeting between a member and a non-member of a social networking service, and more particularly to a method for scheduling a mutual meeting between members of a social networking service and between a member and a non-member of a social networking service, which clearly shows the business problem of scheduling. A technical problem and solution is seen in the court case of McRO. The patents in McRO were an improvement on 3-D animation wherein the prior art comprised that "for each keyframe, the artist would look at the screen and, relying on her judgment, manipulate the character model until it looked right — a visual and subjective process." Thus, the patents in McRO aimed to automate a 3-D animator's tasks, specifically, determining when to set keyframes and setting those keyframes.
In addition, the claimed invention is merely automating the manual process of scheduling a meeting. Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality include, mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential).
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/13/2025, with respect to 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Examiner withdraws 35 USC 103 rejection.
In addition, Claims 1 and 3 are allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art to these claims include Chen (US20090006161A1) in view of Li (US20230419270A1) in further view of Shin (US20170187827A1) in further view of Khvostichenko (8990329) who teaches different screens for members and non-members in a meeting.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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 than the judicial exception itself.
Regarding Step 1 of subject matter eligibility for whether the claims fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03), claims 1 and 3 are directed to a method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1 and 3 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 recites the limitations of
a meeting proposal preparation step wherein a meeting proponent enters meeting proposal information…the meeting proposal information including at least one of meeting party, meeting party's company, meeting time, meeting place, and meeting party's e-mail address; a meeting schedule preparation step preparing a meeting schedule… storing the meeting proposal…inputted value inputted through the meeting schedule…a first action step transmitting… meeting schedule screen to meeting party for scheduling a meeting; a second action step storing meeting information inputted by the meeting party through information shown on the meeting proposal…a third action step transmitting…meeting schedule…and a fourth action step storing meeting confirmation information or meeting change information…the meeting confirmation information of the meeting change information inputted by the meeting party…through the third action step, wherein if the meeting party is a member of the social networking service, processes any one of the first action step, the second action step, the third action step…and wherein if the meeting party is not a member of the social networking service, processes any one of the first action step, the second action step, the third action step…
With respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 11/13/2025, the claims include the additional limitations of
a scheduling step scheduling the mutual meeting based on the meeting confirmation information or the meeting change information; and an attendance step of the meeting party attending the mutual meeting after the scheduling step,
and wherein the method further comprises a member verification step to verify whether the meeting party is a member or a non-member of the social networking service based on information inputted by the meeting party before the meeting proposal preparation step and preparing…according to the member confirmation step.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of entering information, preparing a meeting schedule, transmitting data, storing data, and processing steps. The claims also provide additional concepts of scheduling, attending, verifying, and preparing. The claim limitations fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental process, because the limitations can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, a user is able to make a meeting. This includes entering meeting information and prepare a meeting. In addition, is user is able to store values and meeting information. A user is also able to transmit and store information received from meeting parties. In addition, a user can schedule and attend a meeting. In addition, verifying a person as a member or non-member can be done without a computer as well as preparing information to show a member or nonmember (i.e. preparing information to display). Meeting management is not novel and has been done before the technological age. A meeting organizer would be able to do these steps in the real world.
The claims also deal with meeting management. The claims state the steps of scheduling a meeting. In addition, the Applicant’s specification states in para 0001 The present invention relates to a method for scheduling a meeting between a member and a non-member of a social networking service, and more particularly to a method for scheduling a mutual meeting between members of a social networking service and between a member and a non-member of a social networking service. These make the claims fall in the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (interactions between people). It is clear the limitations recite these abstract idea groupings, but for the recitations of generic computer components. The mere nominal recitations of generic computer components does not take the limitations out of the mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The claims are focused on the combination of these abstract idea processes.
Regarding step 2A-2- This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim recites the additional elements of web, link, social networking service, e-mail, screen, and database.
These components are recited at a high level of generality, and merely automate the steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components or software. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, the claims do not provide for recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims. For example, the dependent claims further describe additional abstract idea steps such as outputting data and a verifying data.
Regarding step 2B the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 recites
Method, however method is not considered an additional element
Claim 1 further recites web, link, social networking service, e-mail, screen, and database.
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification/drawings show general purpose computer components such as screen in para 0007 and figures 2-5.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification/drawings clearly show general purpose computer components such as a screen. The computer components add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. See MPEP 2106.05
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, recitations of generic computer structure to perform generic computer functions that are used to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Khvostichenko (8990329) Discloses a system and associated methods for adding one or more invitees from a calendar event to an access control list of a multi-user communication session is disclosed. The conference application includes a social network engine, a conference server module, a session management module and a user interface engine.
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 MUSTAFA IQBAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9241. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 9:30am-7:30 CST.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
/MUSTAFA IQBAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625