DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 1/15/2026, Applicant, on 4/9/2026, amended Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-15, and added Claim 16. Claims 1-16 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant asserts that the claims recite a system that is both versatile and increases the user interface over existing system, and generates appointment data, and that this is an improvement in technology. Examiner disagrees as the claims recite clear abstractions of both mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity as per the rejection below. This a mere assertion that the claims are eligible under 101, as the utilization of a communication screen, machine learning model, and display information does not make a claim eligible, and other than the recited use of these and the other additional elements here, the amended limitations of the claims are all part of the abstraction. The additional elements of these claims are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This is utilization of current technologies, “Applying It”, similar to that of Alice, and does not make these limitations eligible under 101, as there is no improvement to any additional element, alone or in combination. Any inventive concept would be contained wholly within the abstraction.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §103 – The rejection is hereby removed in light of Applicant’s amendments, for the reasons found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 14, and 15 recite limitations to acquire communication data indicating content of a communication performed through use of a communication tool (Receiving Information, an observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing appointments; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), receive a choice of any one of a first reply using a machine learning model capable of language analysis and a second reply not using the machine learning model (Receiving Information, an observation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing appointments; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), when the first reply is chosen, generate adjustment appointment data indicating an adjustment appointment which is an appointment to be adjusted through the communication based on the communication data (Receiving and Analyzing the Information, an observation and evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing appointments; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), display contents of the adjustment appointment data (Transmitting Information, a judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing appointments; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), when registration of the adjustment appointment is instructed, transmitting the adjustment appointment data to the appointment management tool configured to work in cooperation with the communication tool (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, a judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing appointments; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), when the registration is instructed, automatically generate a reply corresponding to the adjustment appointment and display it based on the machine learning model (Receiving, Analyzing, and Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an observation, evaluation, and judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing appointments; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), when the reply is instructed on the communication screen, transmit the reply on the communication screen (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, a judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. managing appointments; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other reciting a machine learning model capable of language analysis, communication screen, an appointment management tool, an appointment adjustment system comprising at least one processor, communication tool, appointment management tool, and medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of transmitting adjustment data, essentially a report. For example, but for the “data” and “a language-analyzable machine learning model” language, to generate adjustment appointment data indicating an adjustment appointment which is an appointment to be adjusted through the communication based on the communication data and data encompasses someone working at the front of a doctor’s office, taking a call to reschedule an appointment, which is communication data, and using it to reschedule the patient, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, as described above, these processes recite limitations for Managing Human Behavior, a “Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The system, processor, communication tool, model, and medium are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmission steps are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s specification states:
“FIG. 1 is a diagram for illustrating an example of a hardware configuration of the appointment adjustment system. For example, an appointment adjustment system 1 includes a learning terminal 10, a communication server 20, an appointment management server 30, and a user terminal 40. The learning terminal 10, the communication server 20, the appointment management server 30, and the user terminal 40 are each connected to a network N, such as the Internet or a LAN. The learning terminal 10 is a computer which trains a machine learning model described later. For example, the learning terminal 10 is a personal computer, a tablet terminal, or a smartphone. “
Which is an example of a generic computer system/unit, as per the specification above, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, such as a laptop, desktop, tablet, etc., and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not similar to Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. For the collecting and transmission steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered an additional element, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the system, processor, model, medium, etc., and the receiving and transmitting steps, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-13 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of communication screen and user terminal, which are highly generalized when considered under prong 2 as part of the Alice analysis of the MPEP for a practical or under 2B, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
New Claim 16 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with no new additional elements to be considered under prong 2 as part of the Alice analysis of the MPEP for a practical or under 2B, and thus not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 have overcome the prior art and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejections.
The closest prior art of record are Vukich (U.S. Publication No. 2023/021,4786) in view of Burcheci (U.S. Publication No. 2022/035,3640), and Kaiser (U.S. Publication No. 2023/001,4078). Vukich, a computer-based system and method configured for automated electronic calendar management and work task scheduling, teaches and appointment adjustment system comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor being configured to acquire communication data indicating content of a communication performed through use of a communication tool, to acquire adjustment appointment data indicating an adjustment appointment which is an appointment to be adjusted through the communication based on the communication data and a language-analyzable machine learning model, to transmit the adjustment appointment data to an appointment management tool configured to work in cooperation with the communication tool, to determine a processing target portion to be processed by the language-analyzable machine learning model from among the communication data, to acquire the adjustment appointment data based on the language-analyzable machine learning model and the processing target portion, to generate, when the adjustment appointment data is transmitted to the appointment management tool, reply content data indicating reply content in the communication, to acquire the communication data of each of a plurality of the communication tools, to identify, from among the plurality of the communication tools, a communication tool from which the communication data is acquired, and acquire the adjustment appointment data based on the identified communication tool, display a communication screen including the content of the communication and the adjustment appointment indicated by the adjustment appointment data on a user terminal, and to transmit, when the adjustment appointment displayed on the communication screen, the adjustment appointment data to the appointment management tool; and to transmit, when the adjustment appointment displayed on the communication screen is changed by the user, the adjustment appointment data indicating the adjustment appointment to the appointment management tool, but it does not teach changing or not changing by the user on the screen. Burcheci, a system and method for appointment scheduling, teaches only certain information being display where the user information of a user populates based on whether that user is involved in the scheduling. Although both Burcheci and Vukich teach training of a machine learning model, neither explicitly states use of a reply in this, nor does either teach use of a first or second reply based on the using or not using of a machine learning model. Kaiser, a patient scheduling and supply management system and method, teaches training of a machine learning model which is used with new input data, and is used to identify the condition and the tasks required, by using a support vector machine, decision tree, random forest, and other types of machine learning, but does not explicitly state use of a first or second reply based on the using or not using of a machine learning model. None of the prior art explicitly teaches this use of a first or second reply based on the using or not using of a machine learning model, along with the other limitations of the claims, as pointed out by Applicant on pgs. 3 and 4 of the Remarks of 4/9/2026, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 1, 14, and 15, and their dependents, are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230214786 A1
Vukich; Adam
COMPUTER-BASED SYSTEMS CONFIGURED FOR AUTOMATED ELECTRONIC CALENDAR MANAGEMENT AND WORK TASK SCHEDULING AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
US 20220398546 A1
Lightbody; Patrick et al.
SYSTEM AND METHODS FOR MANAGING SCHEDULES AND CALEND
US 20220353640 A1
Burcheci; Emanuel et al.
System and Method for Appointment Scheduling
US 20240225766 A9
Wu; Jessica P. et al.
MEDICAL CO-WORKING SPACE WITH SCHEDULING AND PROVISIONING SYSTEM
US 20240220935 A1
SANDERFORD; Shelby et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SCHEDULING PATIENT APPOINTMENTS
US 20240112789 A1
Boonn; William et al.
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR OPTIMIZING RESOURCE ALLOCATION
US 20240069963 A1
Gharaybeh; Zaid et al.
Goal Oriented Intelligent Scheduling System
US 20240046222 A1
Roeder; Trey et al.
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE MODELS FOR DYNAMIC SCHEDULING
US 20230170078 A1
Peltz; Bradley G.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OPTIMIZING TIME SLOT YIELD RATES
US 20230014078 A1
Kayser; Susan et al.
PATIENT SCHEDULING AND SUPPLY MANAGEMENT
US 20220383266 A1
Hills; David Francis et al.
MANAGING INTERACTIONS FOR SCHEDULING RESOURCES
US 20220222629 A1
Zarakas; James et al.
COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED SYSTEMS CONFIGURED FOR AUTOMATED ELECTRONIC CALENDAR ITEM PREDICTIONS FOR CALENDAR ITEM RESCHEDULING AND METHODS OF USE THEREOF
US 20220215350 A1
Hills; David Francis et al.
AVAILABILITY BASED RESOURCE SCHEDULING
US 20210090031 A1
Peltz; Bradley G.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OPTIMIZING TIME SLOT YIELD RATES
US 20200410455 A1
Aviñó; Matias J. et al.
Peer-to-Peer Tutoring
US 20200034797 A1
Jonnalagadda; Siddhartha Reddy et al.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR IMPROVED AUTOMATED CONVERSATIONS WITH ATTENDANT ACTIONS
US 20170193459 A1
CRASSO; MARCO P. et al.
SCHEDULER RESPONSIVE TO PERSONALITY PROFILE
US 20160275458 A1
Meushar; Dana et al.
Meetings and Events Coordinating System and Method
US 7233933 B2
Horvitz; Eric J. et al.
Methods and architecture for cross-device activity monitoring, reasoning, and visualization for providing status and forecasts of a users' presence and availability
US 20230136309 A1
Xiao-Devins; Melinda Min
Virtual Assistant For Task Identification
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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 on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 7/18/2026
Prosecution Insights