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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 26, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1, 18, and 20 have been amended. Now, claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 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 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-20 are drawn to a method which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis:
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claims 1 recites a method comprising the following:
determining one or more scheduling targets or constraints associated with a particular person, or with a group of people that includes the particular person;
in response to receiving a query determined to be relevant to manipulable by the particular person:
assembling data indicative of:
the one or more scheduling targets or constraints;
processing to generate calendar action output, wherein the calendar action output conveys one or more actions to be performed in furtherance to satisfy the one or more scheduling targets or constraints, wherein the one or more actions comprise automatically accepting or rejecting a calendar invite; and
cause one or more of the actions to be performed.
These steps are directed to determining scheduling targets or constraints associated with a particular person or group of people to manage a calendar of a particular person or group of people which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Independent claims 18 recites a method comprising the following:
Receiving a user input;
in response to receiving the user input, based on content of the user input:
selecting a subset,
retrieving a distinct subset of calendar data,
generating based on the content of the user input and the distinct subset of calendar data,
processing each, to generate output,
generating content respectively generated based on processing, and
cause the generated content to be rendered, wherein the automatically executing comprises automatically accepting or rejecting a calendar invite.
These steps are directed to managing a calendar of a particular person or group of people which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Independent claims 20 recites a method comprising the following:
receiving, from a user, a user input;
in response to receiving the user input:
selecting a subset,
retrieving a distinct subset of calendar data,
generating based on the content of the user input and the distinct subset of calendar data,
processing to generate output,
determining one or more calendar actions, and
cause the one or more calendar actions to be performed, wherein the calendar actions include automatically accepting or rejecting a calendar invite.
These steps are directed to managing a calendar of a particular person or group of people which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Independent Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
an electronic calendar,
by an orchestration agent,
a calendar action prompt,
an electronic calendar formatted as a structured text representation,
one or more generative models,
wherein the one or more generative models comprise a large language model(LLM),
comprising instructions for an API to be executed by the one or more of the processors,
by one or more of the processors
by the one or more processors, the instruction for the API.
Independent Claim 18 does recite additional elements:
a client device,
a calendar application,
by an agent selection engine,
machine learning models,
electronic calendar,
a distinct prompt,
a distinct model,
instructions for an API to be executed by the one or more processors
Independent Claim 20 does recite additional elements:
a client device,
a calendar application,
by an agent selection engine,
machine learning models,
electronic calendar,
a distinct prompt,
a distinct model,
comprising instructions for an API to be executed by the one or more of the processors,
by the one or more processors, the instruction for the API.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“an electronic calendar”, “by an orchestration agent”, “a calendar action prompt”, “an electronic calendar formatted as a structured text representation”, “one or more generative models”, “wherein the one or more generative models comprise a large language model(LLM)”, “comprising instructions for an API to be executed by the one or more of the processors”, “by the one or more processors”, “by one or more of the processors”, “the instruction for the API”, “a client device”, “a calendar application”, “by an agent selection engine”, “machine learning models”, “a distinct prompt”, “a distinct model”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (determining, receiving, assembling, processing, accepting, executing, selecting, retrieving, generating). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 126-132 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 18 and 20 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims:
Claims 4, 6, 9, and 10 sets forth, in part:
Wherein the one or more actions comprise….one or more entries.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of determining scheduling targets or constraints associated with a particular person or group of people to manage a calendar of a particular person or group of people, including managing person behavior. While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “of the electronic calendar”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
The dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11-17, and 19 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1, 18, and 20 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks filed May 26, 2026, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 be considered and withdrawn.
In response, the Examiner has considered these amendments and as outlined in the rejection above these amendments do not overcome the current 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections. These steps as outlined in the independent claims are directed to managing a calendar of a particular person or group of people which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships between people, and human behavior; (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
The additional elements as claimed merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“an electronic calendar”, “by an orchestration agent”, “a calendar action prompt”, “an electronic calendar formatted as a structured text representation”, “one or more generative models”, “wherein the one or more generative models comprise a large language model(LLM)”, “comprising instructions for an API to be executed by the one or more of the processors”, “by the one or more processors”, “by the one or more of the processors”, “the instruction for the API”, “a client device”, “a calendar application”, “by an agent selection engine”, “machine learning models”, “a distinct prompt”, “a distinct model”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (determining, receiving, assembling, processing, executing, selecting, retrieving, generating). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 126-132 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Applicant further argues that “Claims 1, 18, and 20 are amended herein consistent with the Office Action's suggestion to obviate this rejection. Support for the amended claims can be found in para. [0064] of the Specification, which recites: calendar action output may include instructions that are executed automatically, e.g., by the calendar application 140 or assistant application 150 (or an underlying operating system), to modify the electronic calendar automatically, without prompting or otherwise interrupting the user”. This is not positively recited in the claim language and can be interpreted as relying on input from the user as outlined in para. 45 of the Specification, which recites “When a user of a calendar application receives calendar invites for meetings and other user activities, the user may need to manually review content of each calendar invite and determine whether or not to accept or reject each calendar invite based on the manual review”.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
METHOD OF ITERATIVE SCHEDULING AND SYSTEM OF THE SAME (US 20180341886 A1) teaches receive an inputted target file including a target number of first channel interactions and a target number of second channel interactions; receive an inputted date period; receive calendar data of the first party; distribute the first and second channel interactions over the date period; compare the date of a first one of the assigned first channel interactions with the corresponding date of the first party's calendar data, and when the calendar data indicates there is a conflict, shifting the first one of the assigned first channel interactions by one day and comparing the new date with the corresponding date of calendar data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30, First Friday Off.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights