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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 04/28/2026. Amending claims 04/28/2026.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 102/103, will be maintained. The 102/103 rejection is updated in light of the amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument received 04/28/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 9-10 of the remarks): abstract idea
Regarding independent claims 1, 11, and 19, the Office asserts that the claims recite a "certain method of organizing human activity," specifically alleging that they fall within "commercial or legal interactions." See Office Action at 4-5. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
The Office's characterization of the claims as directed to a "certain method of organizing human activity," namely commercial or legal interactions, is incorrect. Instead, the claims are directed to a computer-implemented technique for automatically creating electronic schedules, specifically a method by which a computer system processes natural-language input, generates multiple schedule configuration items, displays those items on a schedule creation page, and creates a schedule in response to user confirmation. The focus of the claim is not on what humans are doing with one another
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Applicant's Specification titled "SCHEDULE CREATION METHOD AND SYSTEM, DEVICE, AND MEDIUM" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for creating the target schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information " (Spec. figure 1).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 11 and 19 are recites the abstract idea of creating the target schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information. In example aspects, based on different data. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of creating the target schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite creating the target schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information and based on different data. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant argues (Page 9 of the remarks): prong two
claim 1 "recites" an abstract idea, the claim as a whole integrates any such idea into a practical application that improves schedule generation efficiency under Step 2A, Prong Two. As noted, for example, in paragraphs [0031] of Applicant's as-filed Specification:
…
without receiving a manual data entry associated with each of the plurality of schedule configuration items, wherein the plurality of schedule configuration items comprises at least a schedule subject and a schedule participant; displaying, on the schedule creation page based on the information to be processed, the schedule information comprising the plurality of schedule configuration items; and creating the schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information." (Emphasis added). Accordingly, Applicant submits that the claims pass muster under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation of an electronic device, a memory storing a computer program, a processor, a non-transitory storage medium, an electronic device, a creation page, and a machine learning model are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The use of generic computer component does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The additional elements of a “machine learning model and a language model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “machine learning model and a language model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 11, and 19 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, 11, and 19 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include An electronic device, a memory storing a computer program, a processor, a non-transitory storage medium, an electronic device, a creation page, and a machine learning model.
Examiner asserts that the additional elements in the claims are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions.
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method (process), claims 11-18 are directed to a device (machine) and claims 19-20 is directed to a non-transitory (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claims 11 and 19 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reasons as claim 1,
Regarding independent claims 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A method of improving schedule generation efficiency, comprising:
obtaining information to be processed in response to an input request triggered on a schedule creation page, wherein the information to be processed comprise natural language content, and wherein the information to be processed is configured to indicate the generation of a target schedule;
automatically generating schedule information comprising a plurality of schedule configuration items based on sending the natural language content to a machine learning model and without receiving a manual data entry associated with each of the plurality of schedule configuration items, wherein the plurality of schedule configuration items comprises at least a schedule subject and a schedule participant;
displaying, on the schedule creation page based on the information to be processed, schedule information comprising the plurality of schedule configuration items; and
creating the schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information.
The Applicant's Specification titled "SCHEDULE CREATION METHOD AND SYSTEM, DEVICE, AND MEDIUM" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for creating the target schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information " (Spec. figure 1).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 11 and 19 are recites the abstract idea of creating the target schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information. In example aspects, based on different data. which is considered certain methods of organizing human activity because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of creating the target schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite creating the target schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information and based on different data. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claim 2 (Similarly claim 12) wherein the obtaining information to be processed in response to an input request triggered on a schedule creation page comprises:
obtaining input information in the schedule creation page in response to the input request triggered on the schedule creation page; and
generating the information to be processed based on the input information.
claim 3 (Similarly claim 13) wherein the obtaining information to be processed in response to an input request triggered on a schedule creation page comprises:
displaying at least one schedule creation template in response to the input request triggered on the schedule creation page;
displaying template content of a schedule creation template in response to a selection operation for the at least one schedule creation template; and
in response to an input operation on the schedule creation page, generating the information to be processed based on the template content of the schedule creation template and input information in the schedule creation page.
claim 4 (Similarly claim 14) wherein the obtaining information to be processed in response to an input request triggered on a schedule creation page comprises:
displaying at least one schedule creation control in response to the input request triggered on the schedule creation page; and
in response to a trigger operation for a schedule creation control of the at least one schedule creation control, generating the information to be processed based on creation information indicated by the schedule creation control.
claim 5 (Similarly claim 15) wherein the displaying, on the schedule creation page based on the information to be processed, schedule information comprising a plurality of schedule configuration items comprises:
generating the plurality of schedule configuration items in sequence based on the information to be processed and a positional relationship between display areas of the plurality of schedule configuration items in the schedule creation page; and
for a schedule configuration item of the plurality of schedule configuration items, displaying the schedule configuration item on the schedule creation page in response to the generation of the schedule configuration item being completed.
claim 6 (Similarly claim 16) displaying a prompt interface in a display area corresponding to the schedule configuration item in the schedule creation page in response to the schedule configuration item being generated, wherein display content in the prompt interface indicates that the target schedule configuration item is being generated.
claim 7 regenerating the plurality of schedule configuration items in sequence in response to a retry operation triggered on the schedule creation page.
claim 8 stopping the generation of the plurality of schedule configuration items in response to a stop operation triggered on the schedule creation page.
claim wherein the machine learning model comprises a language model, the method further comprising: receiving the plurality of schedule configuration items generated by the language model.
Claim 10 receiving input information in response to a trigger operation for the schedule configuration item of the plurality of schedule configuration items; and
displaying the updated schedule configuration item in the display area of the schedule configuration item based on the input information.
Claim 17 regenerating the plurality of schedule configuration items in sequence in response to a retry operation triggered on the schedule creation page; or stopping the generation of the plurality of schedule configuration items in response to a stop operation triggered on the schedule creation page.
Claim 18 wherein the machine learning model comprises a language model, and receiving the plurality of schedule configuration items generated by the language model; and wherein after the creating the schedule, the method further comprises: receiving input information in response to a trigger operation for the schedule configuration item of the plurality of schedule configuration items; and displaying the updated schedule configuration item in the display area of the schedule configuration item based on the input information.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 11 and 19.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 11 and 19 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A machine learning model,
Claim 11. An electronic device, comprising: a memory storing a computer program thereon; and a processor for execution of the computer program in the memory to perform: and a creation page, and machine learning model
Claim 19.
A computer-readable non-transitory storage medium, comprising instructions to instruct an electronic device to perform: and a creation page, and machine learning model
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 11 and 19 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of An electronic device, a memory storing a computer program, a processor, a non-transitory storage medium, an electronic device, a creation page
which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 2). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 11 and 19 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for creating the target schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information. In example aspects, based on different data and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention creating the target schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information based on different data. In example aspects, based on different data. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12-18, and 20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 11, and 19 for example 9, and 18 “model”, but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 11, and 19,
The additional elements of a “machine learning model and a language model”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “machine learning model and a language model” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 11, and 19 include an electronic device, a memory storing a computer program, a processor, a non-transitory storage medium, an electronic device, a creation page. Further, claims 9 and 18 “model”. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to creating the target schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information.
Claims 1-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
Examiner Note: Some rejections will be followed/begin by an “EN” that will denote an examiner note. This will be place to further explain a rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. US 2014/0288990 (hereinafter Moore) in view of Ramsey et al. US 2024/0362594 (hereinafter Ramsey).
Regarding Claim 1:
A method of improving schedule generation efficiency, comprising:
EN: with regard to a schedule creation page, in ¶[0040], “an instant messaging module, a form module, a task management module, a meeting module, and a schedule module”. here the scheduling page is broad. Also, “a target schedule”, in [0058], “a schedule subject, a schedule time, a schedule participant, a venue of use, a schedule agenda, etc.” Also, fig. 2A element 202 is the input for the target schedule which is very broad and it could be any text or input.
obtaining information to be processed in response to an input request triggered on a schedule creation page, wherein the information to be processed comprises natural language content, and (Moore figure 3 [0011-0013], “identifying specific data in unstructured natural language text, linking that data with structured data source … electronic messages that contain information related to calendar …. Scheduling … natural language relating to .. scheduling”. Also, see [0017], [0019], [0025], [0136], [0139-0140], [0142]). wherein the information to be processed is configured to indicate the generation of a schedule; automatically generating schedule information comprising a plurality of schedule configuration items […] (Moore [0013], “ creating a calendar entry (EN: input) (such as an appointment, reminder, event, telephone conference, meeting, or any other entry of information in an electronic calendaring system or application), deleting a calendar entry, modifying a calendar entry, inviting others to a calendar entry, removing others from a calendar entry, scheduling a calendar entry, determining whether conflicts exist amongst calendar entries of a plurality of individuals, etc. also, see [0137], “segment of natural language with some form of structured text (for example, replacing "(EN: Target) tomorrow at 4 PM" with "Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2012 4:00 PM").)
displaying, on the schedule creation page based on the information to be processed, the schedule information comprising the plurality of schedule configuration items; and (Moore Fig. 3-5, [0074-0085], “Organize seeks to suggest one or more proposed meeting … a graphical representation of the tentative time periods for new meeting or event …. The graphical representation visually displays calendar”. Also, see [0087], “Dynamically updated shared calendar information”. EN: the figures 3-4 disclose a creation pages which include plurality of schedule configuration items”.)
creating the schedule in response to a confirmation operation for the schedule information. (Moore [0057], [0083], [0085], [0144], [0162], and [0173-0175] fig. 6 and figure 17 EN: disclose a confirmation operation which confirm the schedule and store it in one or more calendar associated with one or more user(s)”.)
Moore disclose the above limitation but, specifically fails to disclose based on sending the natural language content to a machine learning model and without receiving a manual data entry associated with each of the plurality of schedule configuration items, wherein the plurality of schedule configuration items comprises at least a schedule subject and a schedule participant;
However, Ramsey teaches the following limitation:
automatically generating schedule information comprising a plurality of schedule configuration items based on sending the natural language content to a machine learning model and without receiving a manual data entry associated with each of the plurality of schedule configuration items, wherein the plurality of schedule configuration items comprises at least a schedule subject and a schedule participant; (Ramsey fig. 1 fig. 2 and fig. 5 [0029-0030], “obtain input meeting description text, which is pre-processed and subject to feature engineering and then classified using one or more machine learning models to determine one or more meeting topics for the meeting. The machine learning-based attendance prediction logic 114 is configured to utilize the determined one or more topics for the meeting and identification of one or more potential attendees for the meeting as input to one or more machine learning models to determine a likelihood of each of the one or more potential attendees attending the meeting … whereby various characteristics of the meeting (e.g., a time, a length, a list of attendees, etc.) may be adjusted with such different characteristics being processed using the machine learning-based attendance prediction logic 114 so as to determine an optimal time to schedule the meeting to ensure that one or more= desired ones”. Also, see [0060-0064] & [0072-0073], “not limited to, topic, organizer/coordinator, participants, past participants, etc. The technical solutions utilize sophisticated natural language processing with neural networks to predict the topic of a meeting from its meeting description, which is used as input for predicting invitee/ attendee participation. The technical solutions further leverage a neural network-based classifier to calculate the priority score of attendees which may be used by the attendees for determining whether or not to attend a meeting”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Moore, to include the feature as taught by Ramsey, in order to automatically generating schedule information comprising a plurality of schedule configuration items based on sending the natural language content to a machine learning model and without receiving a manual data entry associated with each of the plurality of schedule configuration items, wherein the plurality of schedule configuration items comprises at least a schedule subject and a schedule participant (Ramsey fig. 1 fig. 2 and fig. 5). This will also improve meeting scheduling effectivity and improve model accuracy and performance (Ramsey [0046], and [0058]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Moore and Ramsey, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 2:
Moore in view of Ramsey disclose the method according to claim 1,
Moore further teach wherein the obtaining information to be processed in response to an input request triggered on a schedule creation page comprises:
obtaining input information in the schedule creation page in response to the input request triggered on the schedule creation page; and generating the information to be processed based on the input information. (Moore [0013], “ creating a calendar entry (EN: input) (such as an appointment, reminder, event, telephone conference, meeting, or any other entry of information in an electronic calendaring system or application), deleting a calendar entry, modifying a calendar entry, inviting others to a calendar entry, removing others from a calendar entry, scheduling a calendar entry, determining whether conflicts exist amongst calendar entries of a plurality of individuals, etc. also, see [0137], “segment of natural language with some form of structured text (for example, replacing "(EN: Target) tomorrow at 4 PM" with "Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2012 4:00 PM"). Moore Fig. 3-5, [0074-0085], “Organize seeks to suggest one or more proposed meeting … a graphical representation of the tentative time periods for new meeting or event …. The graphical representation visually displays calendar”. Also, see [0087], “Dynamically updated shared calendar information”. EN: the figures 3-4 disclose a creation pages which include plurality of schedule configuration items”.)
Regarding Claim 3:
Moore in view of Ramsey disclose the method according to claim 1,
Moore further teach wherein the obtaining information to be processed in response to an input request triggered on a schedule creation page comprises:
displaying at least one schedule creation template in response to the input request triggered on the schedule creation page; (Moore Fig. 3-5, [0074-0085], “Organize seeks to suggest one or more proposed meeting … a graphical representation of the tentative time periods for new meeting or event …. The graphical representation visually displays calendar”. Also, see [0087], “Dynamically updated shared calendar information”. EN: the figures 3-4 disclose a creation pages which include plurality of schedule configuration items”.)
displaying template content of a schedule creation template in response to a selection operation for the at least one schedule creation template; and in response to an input operation on the schedule creation page, generating the information to be processed based on the template content of the schedule creation template and input information in the schedule creation page. (Moore figure 7 and 11 [0145-0146], “a user may send an electronic message with a form (EN: template) (the table shown in FIG. 7 with dates and times in the first row and radio buttons indicating Yes/Maybe/No in each column) and an image (the second table with dates and times in the first row, and each recipient's response to the form in the columns). As demonstrated in FIG. 7, recipient meetingtester@baydin. com has completed the form and has responses "Yes" (represented by a check mark) for the first proposed meeting time, "No" (represented by an "X" symbol) for the second proposed meeting time, "Maybe" (represented by a question mark) for the third proposed meeting time, and "Yes" (represented by a check mark) for the fourth proposed meeting time. As shown in FIG. 7, recipients roger@baydin.com and sarah@baydin.com have not yet responded to the form. The image also displays a total of "Yes" responses for each proposed meeting time, allowing the organizer and other recipients to easily see which proposed meeting time most recipients are able to attend. In some embodiments, the image shown in FIG. 7 may be shown via a reference embedded in the electronic message, such that the image may be changed without changing the content within the electronic message.)
PNG
media_image1.png
918
1328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4:
Moore in view of Ramsey disclose the method according to claim 1,
Moore further teach wherein the obtaining information to be processed in response to an input request triggered on a schedule creation page comprises:
displaying at least one schedule creation control in response to the input request triggered on the schedule creation page; and in response to a operation for a target schedule creation control of the at least one schedule creation control, generating the information to be processed based on creation information indicated by the schedule creation control. (EN: referring back to applicant specification with regard to the ”creation control”, in ¶[0083] and figure 2G element 203, the creation control could be “confirm, adjust or cancel”. See [0057], [0083], [0085], [0144], [0162], and [0172-0175] fig. 6 and figure 17 EN: disclose a confirmation operation which confirm the schedule and store it in one or more calendar associated with one or more user(s)”.)
Regarding Claim 5:
Moore in view of Ramsey disclose the method according to claim 1,
Moore further teach wherein the displaying, on the schedule creation page based on the information to be processed, schedule information comprising a plurality of schedule configuration items comprises:
generating the plurality of schedule configuration items in sequence based on the information to be processed and a positional relationship between display areas of the plurality of schedule configuration items in the schedule creation page; and (Moore [0168-0170], “in order to propose an alternative time period for the new calendar entry different from the ones originally selected by the organizer. In such embodiments, the recipient may click on one or more otherwise available time periods in the graphical representation (EN: positional relationship between display area.). The recipient may be asked to confirm that he desires to suggest a new time period for the new calendar (EN: first step) entry different from the selections previously made by the organizer. In some embodiments, when a recipient suggests a different time period for a new calendar entry that was not previously suggested by the organizer, the organizer may receive a message similar (EN: second step based on the first) to the message displayed in FIG. 15 rather than a confirmation that a recipient has selected one of the time periods proposed by the organizer (EN: sequence).)
for a schedule configuration item of the plurality of schedule configuration items, displaying the schedule configuration item on the schedule creation page in response to the generation of the target schedule configuration item being completed. (Moore See [0057], [0083], [0085], [0144], [0162], and [0172-0175] fig. 6 and figure 17 EN: disclose a confirmation operation which confirm the schedule and store it in one or more calendar associated with one or more user(s)”.)
Regarding Claim 6:
Moore in view of Ramsey disclose the method according to claim 5, further comprising:
Moore further teach displaying a prompt interface in a display area corresponding to the schedule configuration item in the schedule creation page in response to the schedule configuration item being generated, wherein display content in the prompt interface indicates that the schedule configuration item is being generated. (Moore [0144], “the system prompts the user to confirm that a time slot for the tentative calendar entry has been confirmed”. Moore [0156], “prompted … selecting or clicking a button or icon to suggest a meeting”. EN: also, fig. 18 disclose display content in the prompt on a user interface”.)
Regarding Claim 7:
Moore in view of Ramsey disclose the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
Moore further teach regenerating the plurality of schedule configuration items in sequence in response to a retry operation triggered on the schedule creation page. (Moore [0146-0147], “a user may select from a variety of different classes of meetings, such as "Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, Coffee or Drinks" The user is also asked to input a tentative geographic location for the meeting (in the present example, Mountain View). Based at least in part on the user's selection, and the user's preferred location, the user is offered a suggested time and place for the meeting. The suggested time may be based, at least in part, on the user's selection of a time slot, or, based on available time in the user's schedule … A user may also be able to click the "Try Again"(EN: regenerating) button if they do not like the initial or subsequent suggestions.”.)
Regarding Claim 8:
Moore in view of Ramsey disclose the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
Moore further teach stopping the generation of the plurality of schedule configuration items in response to a stop operation triggered on the schedule creation page. (Moore [0081], “if the user cancels the event, the system will automatically cancel the reminder”. Also, see fig. 4 disclose the option to cancel operation”. Also, see [0013], [0039], [0154], [0162], [0173])
Regarding Claim 9:
Moore disclose the method according to claim 1,
Moore further teach wherein the machine learning model comprises a language [[model]], the method further comprising: receiving the plurality of schedule configuration items generated by the language [[model]]. (Moore [0027], “automatically structuring the natural language text that relates to the data source into a format matching the data source, and adding that data to the source”. Also, see [0136-0137])
Moore disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose a language model
However, Ramsey teaches the following limitations:
sending the information to be processed to a language model, and receiving the plurality of schedule configuration items generated by the language model. (Ramsey [0041], “obtaining a first data structure characterizing a description of a given meeting. Natural language processing of the first data structure is performed in step 202 utilizing a first machine learning model to identify one or more topics for the given meeting”.[0057], “The topic analyzer engine 407 is configured to utilize natural language understanding (NLU) and neural networks or other machine learning models to analyze meeting description information in order to classify the topics or intents (e.g., the topics to be discussed) of a given meeting. In some embodiments, the meeting description is considered as a time series model, where the words come one after another in time/space. Thus, the topic analyzer engine 407 may utilize a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) machine learning model for analyzing the meeting description”. Also, see [0059], [0060], [0068] figure 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Moore, to include the feature of the language model, as taught by Ramsey, in order to process and generate the information by a language model (Ramsey [0042]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Moore and Ramsey, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 10:
Moore in view of Ramsey disclose the method according to claim 1,
Moore further teach wherein after the creating the target schedule, the method further comprises:
receiving input information in response to a trigger operation for the target schedule configuration item of the plurality of schedule configuration items; and displaying the updated target schedule configuration item in the display area of the target schedule configuration item based on the input information. (Moore [0013], “ creating a calendar entry (EN: input) (such as an appointment, reminder, event, telephone conference, meeting, or any other entry of information in an electronic calendaring system or application), deleting a calendar entry, modifying a calendar entry, inviting others to a calendar entry, removing others from a calendar entry, scheduling a calendar entry, determining whether conflicts exist amongst calendar entries of a plurality of individuals, etc. also, see [0137], “segment of natural language with some form of structured text (for example, replacing "(EN: Target) tomorrow at 4 PM" with "Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2012 4:00 PM"). Moore Fig. 3-5, [0074-0085], “Organize seeks to suggest one or more proposed meeting … a graphical representation of the tentative time periods for new meeting or event …. The graphical representation visually displays calendar”. Also, see [0087], “Dynamically updated shared calendar information”. EN: the figures 3-4 disclose a creation pages which include plurality of schedule configuration items”.)
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 is the device claim corresponding to the method claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 is the device claim corresponding to the method claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is the device claim corresponding to the method claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 is the device claim corresponding to the method claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is the device claim corresponding to the method claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 is the device claim corresponding to the method claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17:
Moore in view of Ramsey disclose the electronic device according to claim 11,
Moore further teach further comprising: regenerating the plurality of schedule configuration items in sequence in response to a retry operation triggered on the schedule creation page; (Moore [0146-0147], “a user may select from a variety of different classes of meetings, such as "Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, Coffee or Drinks" The user is also asked to input a tentative geographic location for the meeting (in the present example, Mountain View). Based at least in part on the user's selection, and the user's preferred location, the user is offered a suggested time and place for the meeting. The suggested time may be based, at least in part, on the user's selection of a time slot, or, based on available time in the user's schedule … A user may also be able to click the "Try Again"(EN: regenerating) button if they do not like the initial or subsequent suggestions.”.) or stopping the generation of the plurality of schedule configuration items in response to a stop operation triggered on the schedule creation page. (Moore [0081], “if the user cancels the event, the system will automatically cancel the reminder”. Also, see fig. 4 disclose the option to cancel operation”. Also, see [0013], [0039], [0154], [0162], [0173])
Regarding Claim 18:
Moore disclose the electronic device according to claim 11,
Moore further teach wherein the wherein the machine learning model comprises a language [[model]], and wherein the processor further perform: receiving the plurality of schedule configuration items generated by the language [[model]]; and
after the creating the schedule, receiving input information in response to a trigger operation for the schedule configuration item of the plurality of schedule configuration items; and displaying the updated schedule configuration item in the display area of the schedule configuration item based on the input information. (Moore [0013], “ creating a calendar entry (EN: input) (such as an appointment, reminder, event, telephone conference, meeting, or any other entry of information in an electronic calendaring system or application), deleting a calendar entry, modifying a calendar entry, inviting others to a calendar entry, removing others from a calendar entry, scheduling a calendar entry, determining whether conflicts exist amongst calendar entries of a plurality of individuals, etc. also, see [0137], “segment of natural language with some form of structured text (for example, replacing "(EN: Target) tomorrow at 4 PM" with "Tuesday, Nov. 20, 2012 4:00 PM"). Moore Fig. 3-5, [0074-0085], “Organize seeks to suggest one or more proposed meeting … a graphical representation of the tentative time periods for new meeting or event …. The graphical representation visually displays calendar”. Also, see [0087], “Dynamically updated shared calendar information”. EN: the figures 3-4 disclose a creation pages which include plurality of schedule configuration items”.)
Moore disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose a language model
However, Ramsey teaches the following limitations:
sending the information to be processed to a language model, and receiving the plurality of schedule configuration items generated by the language model; and displaying, on the schedule creation page, the schedule information comprising the plurality of schedule configuration items, (Ramsey [0041], “obtaining a first data structure characterizing a description of a given meeting. Natural language processing of the first data structure is performed in step 202 utilizing a first machine learning model to identify one or more topics for the given meeting”.[0057], “The topic analyzer engine 407 is configured to utilize natural language understanding (NLU) and neural networks or other machine learning models to analyze meeting description information in order to classify the topics or intents (e.g., the topics to be discussed) of a given meeting. In some embodiments, the meeting description is considered as a time series model, where the words come one after another in time/space. Thus, the topic analyzer engine 407 may utilize a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) machine learning model for analyzing the meeting description”. Also, see [0059], [0060], [0068] figure 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Moore, to include the feature of the language model, as taught by Ramsey, in order to process and generate the information by a language model (Ramsey [0042]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor 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, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Moore and Ramsey, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 is the non-transitory claim corresponding to the method claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 is the non-transitory claim corresponding to the method claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dai et al. US 12,412,568: Integrating an application programming interface with a contact center.
Dunstan et al. US 2024/0047056: Senior living care coordination platforms.
Wayne et al. US 2024/0020756: Apparatus and methods for enabling workers to compete for currently upcoming shifts.
Brush et al. US 2023/0368151: Calendar consultation dialogue processor.
Schemers et al. US 2023/0030552: Method, apparatus and computer program product for improving event creation and modification in a group-based communication platform.
Shetty US 11,521,179: Conducting an automated virtual meeting without active participants.
Dhumal et al. US 2022/0383265: Intelligent meeting scheduling assistant using user activity analysis.
Han WO 2022/225270: method and device for analyzing schedule and recommending additional service by using artificial intelligence.
Heiferman CA 2799838: Web-based interactive meeting event facility.
Muppidi S, Kandi J, Kondaka BS, Kethireddy C, Kandregula SE. Automatic meeting minutes generation using Natural Language processing. In2023 International Conference on Evolutionary Algorithms and Soft Computing Techniques (EASCT) 2023 Oct 20 (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
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 HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights