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 . Claims 1-9, 12-15 and 18-32 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant refers to amended claims asserting the claims recite limitations as actual components and necessary elements to execute computing processes. Examiner notes the components amount to general purpose computing elements that merely function to implement the abstract idea identified in the rejection. For instance, paragraphs [0043-0044] describe the components are general computers including processors, memory, storage, input devices, etc., that execute programs loaded in the memory to carry out the abstract process. The rejection is upheld and updated to address the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn.
The claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) remains.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an organization information setting unit, an adjustment condition setting unit, and a time/date adjustment unit in claims 1-11 and 18-28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof as described in at least paragraphs [0043-0044] of Applicant’s specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-9, 12-15, 18-32 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. Claim(s) 1-17 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Independent claims 1, 12, 13 recite an organization information setting step of setting and storing in the storage unit one or more belonging member information including belonging member IDs in member information, being executed by the processor, wherein the belonging member information is associated with a member account that identifies a member who has conducted member registration with the time/date adjustment apparatus, the belonging member information is configured as information that is a part of the member information in response to at least one of a manual input of the belonging member information and uploading of data recording the belonging member information performed by a member administrator of the member, thereby the belonging member information of the belonging members who belong to the same organization as the member administrator being managed in association with the member account, and the belonging member IDs of the belonging members are associated with user accounts of the external system to obtain the schedule information of the belonging members using the belonging member IDs from the external system;
an adjustment condition setting step of setting and storing in the storage unit an adjustment condition related to the assembly, being executed by the processor; and a time/date adjustment step of adjusting an assembly time/date at which the assembly is to be held based on the adjustment condition, being executed by the processor, wherein the adjustment condition setting step includes causing the first terminal apparatus to display an operation screen for setting the adjustment condition, and setting and storing in the storage unit the adjustment condition in response to an input operation of the adjustment initiator to the operation screen, who belongs to the same organization as the member administrator, wherein the adjustment condition includes time required for the assembly and a designation of the one or more participants, and the adjustment condition setting step includes reading the belonging member information of at least one of the belonging members who belongs to the same organization as the adjustment initiator from the member information of the organization to which the adjustment initiator belongs and which is stored in the storage unit, causing the first terminal apparatus to display a belonging member list on which the read belonging member information of the at least one of the belonging members is described, and the participants are selected from the belonging member list in response to a selection operation of the adjustment initiator, the time/date adjustment step includes causing the first terminal apparatus to display a time/date editing screen for setting second candidate time/dates, determining the second candidate time/dates in response to an input operation of the adjustment initiator on the time/date editing screen, and storing the second candidate time/dates in the storage unit, when the adjustment partner performs an access to the time/date adjustment apparatus using access information notified by the adjustment initiator, the time/date adjustment step includes reading the adjustment condition stored in the storage unit, referring to the schedule information of all the participants from the external system by using the belonging member IDs included in the belonging member information of the participants designated in the adjustment condition, identifying, for each of the participants, one or more available time/dates from the schedule information wherein the available time/dates fall within a range of the second candidate time/dates and no existing plan exists in the available time/dates, identifying, for each of the participants, time/dates A that secures the time required for the assembly designated in the adjustment condition from the identified available time/dates, and extracting, as third candidate time/dates, time/dates that satisfy a requirement of being within the time/dates A of at least one of the participants among the identified time/dates A, causing the second terminal apparatus to display a time/date adjustment screen presenting the extracted third candidate time/dates, determining the assembly time/date out of the third candidate time/dates in response to, a selection operation of the adjustment partner on the time/date adjustment screen, and registering the determined assembly time/date in the schedule information of at least one of the participants managed by the external system.
But for the recited apparatus, units and screens/display language, the claims recite limitations that reflect Mental Process steps in which a user is making observations/evaluations mentally or with pen and paper to perform the claimed steps. Further, the claims recite data analysis steps to set an assembly time/date in a schedule. Determine time and date for a business meeting/assembly is considered commercial interactions and/or a fundamental business practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and considered Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The nominal recitation of computer/system elements referred to above does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Claims 18, 29 and 30 recite substantially the same claim limitations except for limitations describing alternate adjustment conditions. As these adjustment conditions are abstract ideas as identified above with respect to claims 1, 12 and 13, the same analysis is applied. Claims 18, 29 and 30 recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. The nominal recitation of computer/system elements referred to above does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Independent claims 7, 14 and 15 recite an organization information setting step of setting and storing in the storage unit one or more site information including site IDs in member information, being executed by the processor, wherein the site information is associated with a member account that identifies a member who has conducted member registration with the time/date adjustment apparatus, and the site IDs are used to identify the sites that one or more belonging members are allowed to use for the assembly, wherein
the site information is configured as information that is a part of the member information in response to at least one of a manual input of the site information and uploading of data recording the site information performed by a member administrator of the member, thereby the site information of the sites that are used for the assembly by the belonging members who belong to the same organization as the member administrator being managed in association with the member account, and
the site IDs of the sites are associated with site information of the external system to obtain the schedule information of the sites using the site IDs from the external system;
an adjustment condition setting step of setting and storing in the storage unit an adjustment condition related to the assembly, being executed by the processor; and
a time/date adjustment step of adjusting an assembly time/date at which the assembly is to be held based on the adjustment condition, being executed by the processor, wherein
the adjustment condition setting step includes causing the first terminal apparatus to display an operation screen for setting the adjustment condition, and setting and storing in the storage unit the adjustment condition in response to an input operation of the adjustment initiator to the operation screen, who belongs to the same organization as the member administrator, wherein
the adjustment condition includes time required for the assembly and a designation of one selected site, and
the adjustment condition setting step includes reading the site information of at least one of the sites that is used by the belonging members who belongs to the same organization as the adjustment initiator from the member information of the organization to which the adjustment initiator belongs and which is stored in the storage unit, causing the first terminal apparatus to display a site list on which the read site information of the at least one of the sites is described, and the selected site is selected from the site list in response to a selection operation of the adjustment initiator,
the time/date adjustment step includes causing the first terminal apparatus to display a time/date editing screen for setting second candidate time/dates, determining the second candidate time/dates in response to an input operation of the adjustment initiator on the time/date editing screen, and storing the second candidate time/dates in the storage unit,
when the adjustment partner performs an access to the time/date adjustment apparatus using access information notified by the adjustment initiator, the time/date adjustment step includes
reading the adjustment condition stored in the storage unit,
referring to the schedule information of the selected site from the external system by using the site ID included in the site information of the selected site designated in the adjustment condition,
identifying one or more available time/dates from the schedule information wherein the available time/dates fall within a range of the second candidate time/dates and no existing plan exists in the available time/dates, identifying time/dates A that secures the time required for the assembly designated in the adjustment condition from the identified available time/dates, and extracting all the identified time/dates A as third candidate time/dates,
causing the second terminal apparatus to display a time/date adjustment screen presenting the extracted third candidate time/dates,
determining the assembly time/date out of the third candidate time/dates in response to a selection operation of the adjustment partner on the time/date adjustment screen, and
registering the determined assembly time/date in the schedule information of the selected site managed by the external system.
But for the recited apparatus, units and screens/display language, the claims recite limitations reflect Mental Process steps in which a user is making observations/evaluations mentally or with pen and paper to perform the claimed steps. Further, the claims recite data analysis steps to set an assembly time/date in a schedule. Determine time and date for a business meeting/assembly is considered commercial interactions and/or a fundamental business practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and considered Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The nominal recitation of computer/system elements referred to above does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Claims 23, 31 and 32 recite substantially the same claim limitations except for limitations describing alternate adjustment conditions. As these adjustment conditions are abstract ideas as identified above with respect to claims 7, 14 and 15, the same analysis is applied. Claims 23, 31 and 32 recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. The nominal recitation of computer/system elements referred to above does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and 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, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims recite apparatuses and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program causing a computer to function and implement the steps of the recited invention. These processing and display functions amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claimed units are recited at a high level of generality and also amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Each of the additional limitations amount to mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components or in a generic computer environment. Accordingly, taken alone or in combination the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claim 2 and 19 recites the authentication unit performs authentication processing with an external system which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 recites additional steps of the abstract idea wherein the claimed units process the data and first and second terminal apparatuses displays an editing screen and processes data which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 4-6 and 20-22 recite additional steps of the abstract idea identified above. Further the apparatus functions to perform the steps which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 8-9 and 24 recite additional steps of the abstract idea wherein the claimed units process the data and first and second terminal apparatuses displays an editing screen and processes data which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 10-11 and 25-28 recite additional steps of the abstract idea identified above. Further the apparatus functions to perform the steps which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 16-17 recite additional steps of the abstract idea identified above. Further the apparatus functions to perform the steps which amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software 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. 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.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101. The closest prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach Applicant' s invention. The closest prior art, cited by examiner, includes: Connolly et al, US 2018/0260790 and Hosabettu et al, US 2016/0019485, and Chappa et al, US 2021/0312403. Applicant' s reply makes evident the reason for allowance, satisfying the record as a whole as required by rule 37 CFR 1.104(e). The substance of applicant' s remarks filed on 02/26/2026 point out the reason claims are patentable over the prior art of record (see MPEP 1302.14). As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
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 JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights