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 .
Acknowledgements
Claims 2, 5, and 12 are cancelled.
Applicant provided information disclosure statement.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are pending.
This is a final office action with respect to Applicant’s amendments filed 3/18/2026.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues on page 15
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 does not include any mental process; rather, it defines method steps implemented by using a specially configured computer processor. For example, claim 1 defines " ... the method further comprises: determining a calendar ID of the personal calendar associated with the participant information by at least one of: querying pre-stored correspondences between the participant information and the calendar ID of the personal calendar, or sending the participant information to the calendar application to request the calendar ID of the personal calendar associated with the participant information from the calendar application."
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Determining a calendar ID based on stored data or a request for data is merely a mental process (observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions). A user is able to ask another user for the calendar ID or determine a calendar ID based on looking at stored data. A computer is not needed for merely determining data.
Applicant argues on page 16
Accordingly, the embodiments of the present application provide a variety of ways for creating or updating schedule information by means of a target calendar, and the schedule information synchronization method provided in the embodiments of the present disclosure can be selected according to different application scenarios.
As to Step 2B: Taking amended claim 1 as an example, Applicant submits that the claim provides an inventive concept.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Creating and updating schedule information is mere manipulation of data and these limitations still fall in the abstract idea grouping of a mental process (observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions). The claimed invention is merely an automation of a manual process. The courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality that 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).
In addition, the Application has not provided evidence what is the inventive concept in step 2B. The Applicant, merely states a conclusory statement.
Applicant argues technical solution on page 16, Applicant recites
In the technical solution of amended claim 1, a variety of implementation methods for creating or updating first schedule information by means of a target calendar
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s specification in para 0003 recites event management. Improving efficiency of event management is not a technical problem but a business problem. Event management has been around before the technological age and is not novel. 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.
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, 3-4, 6-11, and 13-20 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 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, 3-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, device, and method.
Regarding step 2A-1, Claims 1, 3-4, 6-11, and 13-20 recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 1 and similarly claims 19 and 20 recite the limitations of
…determining…first record information of a target event corresponding to the trigger, the first record information…acquiring…a first event parameter of the target event from the first record information; and based on the first event parameter, creating or updating…event information…wherein the based on the first event parameter, creating or updating…event information…based on the first event parameter, creating or updating…first schedule information corresponding to the first event parameter by means of a target calendar…the target calendar is a calendar configured to carry the first schedule information…the based on the first event parameter, creating or updating…first schedule information corresponding to the first event parameter by means of a target calendar comprises: determining…participant information corresponding to the first event parameter, the target calendar being a personal calendar associated with the participant information; and based on the first event parameter, creating or updating…the first schedule information in the personal calendar…
In response to Applicant’s amendments on 3/18/2026, the claim limitations further recite
…determining a calendar ID of the personal calendar associated with the participant information by at least one of: querying pre- stored correspondences between the participant information and the calendar ID of the personal calendar, or sending the participant information…to request the calendar ID of the personal calendar associated with the participant information…
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation cover concepts of determining, acquiring, querying, sending, and creating/updating data. 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, but for the language of device and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, the claim language encompasses simply determining records and participant information, receiving first event parameter, and creating/updating event information and a first schedule. These are mere data manipulation steps that do not require a computer. The claims also deal with scheduling, scheduling is not novel and has been around before the technological age. In addition, the claims further describe additional mental process steps such as querying data and sending/transmitting data. Given a real-world example, these steps can be carried out by a scheduler trying to schedule a meeting. Event management is not a novel concept and has been done before the technological age.
Since the claims deal with scheduling and event management (See para 0003 in specification), 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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, device, application, computer program, processor, physical button, trigger link, control component, synchronization component, and memory.
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 recite communication means such as emails. In addition, the dependent claims further recite details about the event such as event location and event description.
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 limitation.
Claim 1 also recites machine, event management application, calendar application, synchronization control, and target application.
Claim 17 recites mailbox application.
Claim 19 recites electronic device, processor, computer program, target application, synchronization control, event management application, calendar application, and memory.
Claim 20 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, processor, computer program, synchronization control, target application, event management application, and calendar application.
When looking at these additional elements individually, the additional elements are purely functional and generic the Applicant specification states a general-purpose processor in para 0312.
When looking at the additional elements in combination, the Applicant’s specification merely states a general-purpose processor as seen in para 0312. 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, 3-4, 6-11, and 13-20 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.
Meushar (20160275458) Discloses a method and system for dynamic scheduling services by synchronizing calendars in a confidential and anonymous manner without the need of sharing calendars content with other users.
Mountain (US20160029085A1) Discloses systems and methods of media devices that are operable to receive appointment information from an electronic device, wherein the appointment information is defined by a time period for a scheduled appointment for a user, and wherein the scheduled appointment requires the user to be at a remote location that is remote from a location of the media device such that the user is unable to manually operate or use their media device.
Farley (10831568) Discloses a method, computer system, and computer program product for an electronic alarm management system. The method may include detecting a trigger event that causes a user device to be shut down.
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
Prosecution Insights