DETAILED ACTION
This Non Final office action is in response to Applicant’s communication received June 3, 2024. In the communication, claims 10-14 were elected and claims 1-9 and 15-19 were withdrawn. Claims 10-14 are currently pending and under examination.
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 .
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on September 24, 2024 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 10-14 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.
Step One:
Under Step one of an analysis, claim 10 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is a method claim. Claim 10 falls under one of the four statutory classes of invention.
Step 2A. Prong 1: the claims recite the following limitations that are understood to recite an abstract idea without the bolded limitations.
Representative claim 10 recites:
selecting at least one portion of a period of available time in the CBTM application for scheduling a plurality of tasks to be undertaken by a plurality of users;
selecting a designated period within the available time for scheduling at least one task from the plurality of tasks; and
preventing the designated period from being scheduled for tasks other than the at least one task in at least one of the CBTM application and the at least one calendar application.
Claim 11 further recites where the selection is performed by the CBTM application using at least one programmed rule.
Claim 12 further recites where the designated period for the at least one task is added to a calendar application of at least one of the plurality of users.
Claim 13 further teaches where the selecting of the designated period is received from at least one of:
the CBTM application and a calendar application.
Claim 14 further recites where the at least one task is designated in the calendar application using at least one of text labels and metadata.
Here, the claimed concept falls into the category of functions of performing mental processes such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because it amounts to the function of:
selecting a designated period within the available time for scheduling at least one task from a plurality of tasks. Therefore, the claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity.
Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
The claims recite the following limitations that are understood to recite an abstract idea with the bolded limitations to be the additional elements.
Claim 10 recites:
selecting at least one portion of a period of available time in the CBTM application for scheduling a plurality of tasks to be undertaken by a plurality of users;
selecting a designated period within the available time for scheduling at least one task from the plurality of tasks; and
preventing the designated period from being scheduled for tasks other than the at least one task in at least one of the CBTM application and the at least one calendar application.
The dependent claims:
Claim 11 further recites where the selection is performed by the CBTM application using at least one programmed rule.
Claim 12 further recites where the designated period for the at least one task is added to a calendar application of at least one of the plurality of users.
Claim 13 further teaches where the selecting of the designated period is received from at least one of:
the CBTM application and a calendar application.
Claim 14 further recites where the at least one task is designated in the calendar application using at least one of text labels and metadata.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in the claims, the claims recite additional elements including a generic data gathering step of a processor and memory.
The claimed “the CBTM application and the calendar application” are similarly understood in light of applicant's specification as mere usage of any arrangement of computer software or hardware intermediate components potentially using networks to communicate with instructions are properly understood to be mere instructions to apply the abstraction using a CBTM application and a calendar application. Performing steps or functions by a processor merely limits the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers to process data (i.e. managing of time and task data).
Performing steps by a generic machine, or server computing device merely limit the abstraction to a computer field by execution by generic computers. See MPEP 2106.05 (1 ).
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), limitations which amount to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool, limitations which amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, and limitations which amount to generally linking to a particular technological environment do not integrate a practical exception into a practical application.
Performance of the claimed steps or functions technologically may present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claims does not reasonably integrate the abstraction into a practical application.
Accordingly, the 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. Thus the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The elements discussed above with respect to the practical application in Step 2A, prong 2 are equally applicable to consideration of whether the claims amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the clams fail to recite additional elements which, when considered individually and in combination, amount to significantly more. Reconsideration of these elements identified as insignificant extra-solution activity as part of Step 2B does not change the analysis.
Positively reciting a “CBTM application and a calendar application", does not change the analysis as these aspects are properly considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to apply it with a computer.
These claimed elements also as found in the dependent claims are also recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component.
In processing the claims, it is noted that the recitation of these additional elements does not impact the analysis of the claims because these elements in combination are noted only to be one or more of a general purpose computer for performing basic or routine computer functions. The claimed CBTM application and calendar application are noted to a generic computer for selecting a designated period within the available time for scheduling at least one task from the plurality of tasks and preventing the designated period from being scheduled for tasks other than the at least one task in at least one of the CBTM application and the calendar application.
. These additional elements do not overcome the analysis as these elements are merely considered as additional elements which amount to instructions to be applied to the generic computer.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claimed CBTM application and calendar application are recited at a high level of generality such they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Accordingly, the 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. Accordingly, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 11-14 include additional elements beyond those recited by independent claim 10. The provision of additional details of a generic computer element does not render the element any less generic. The claimed steps do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, because they are well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions in view of MPEP 2106 .05(d)(11). The recited computer elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the computer elements are generic computer elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 11-14 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 USC. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. Claims 10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hurmola et al (US Pub. No. US 20080162247 A1, hereinafter referred to “Hurmola”) in view of Kim (US Pub. No. 2007/0233535).
As per claim 10, Hurmola teaches:
selecting at least one portion of a period of available time in the CBTM application for scheduling a plurality of tasks to be undertaken by a plurality of users (Paragraph [0059]);
selecting a designated period within the available time for scheduling at least one task from the plurality of tasks (Paragraphs [0058] and [0063]); and
Hurmola fails to teach but Kim teaches preventing the designated period from being scheduled for tasks other than the at least one task in at least one of the CBTM application and the at least one calendar application. Note claim 2 of Kim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hurmola to include the teachings of Kim, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Hurmola further teaches where the designated period for the at least one task is added to a calendar application of at least one of the plurality of users (Paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, Hurmola further teaches where the selecting of the designated period is received from at least one of the CBTM application and a calendar application. See abstract of Hurmola.
Regarding claim 14, Hurmola further recites where the at least one task is designated in the calendar application using at least one of text labels and metadata (Paragraph [0062]).
8. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hurmola et al (US Pub. No. US 20080162247 A1, hereinafter referred to “Hurmola”) in view of Kim (US Pub. No. 2007/0233535) in further view of Ramanathan (US Publication No. 20100030609).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hurmola and Kim fails to teach but Ramanathan teaches one programmed rule. See paragraphs 0062 and 0085). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Hurmola and Kim to include a programmed rule, as taught by Ramanathan with the motivation to evaluate, create an adjust task length for a set of tasks from all created adjusted time allocations.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. As per attached PTO 892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROMAIN JEANTY whose telephone number is (571)272-6732. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM to 5:30PM.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached at 571 272-6787. 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.
/RJ/
/ROMAIN JEANTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624