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 .
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “evaluating …” and “performing prompt engineering …”. These limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processor”. For example, but for the “processor” language, these steps in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually evaluating a natural language input to determine the next execution date/time to carry out execution. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. 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. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements - using a processor to perform these steps. The use of a processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer device performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element and step of “GPT” and “receiving …” are merely for the purpose of data gathering and/or insignificant extra-solution activity that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 16-20 include steps that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performing these steps. All of these steps can be performed in the mind and/or using a pen and paper. 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.
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 Carter (USPG 2026/0073359, hereinafter Carter) in view of Lanning et al. (USPG 2026/0010394, hereinafter Lanning).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Carter discloses a computer-implemented method, non-transitory CRM, and computing systems for translating express recurrence in natural language into a time stamp for a subsequent recurrence, comprising:
memory storing computer program instructions for translating express recurrence in natural language into a time stamp for a subsequent recurrence (figures 6A-B, memory and processor for storing and executing program instructions); and at least one processor configured to execute the computer program instructions (figures 6A-B, memory and processor for storing and executing program instructions), wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to execute:
receiving, by at least one processor, a trigger and / or a notification for scheduling a next execution date / time from a user interface or a debugger, wherein the trigger or the notification is for an initial recurrence or the subsequent recurrence (paragraph 51-56, receiving a message scheduled to be sent at a future time);
for the initial recurrence or each subsequent recurrence, evaluating, by the at least one processor, natural language from the trigger or natural language from the notification to compute the next execution date / time (figures 5A-B and/or paragraphs 64-69, evaluate the messages including the “intervening message” to compute a next execution date/time); and
performing prompt engineering to force scheduler to execute a schedule based on the next execution date/time (figures 5A-B and/or paragraphs 64-69, execute or send the message).
Carter fails to explicitly disclose, however, Lanning teaches that the scheduler is a generative pre-trained transformer (GPT) (paragraphs 7-9, using a pre-trained generative model to analyze the schedule activities included in the input).
Since Carter and Lanning are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of utilizing a GPT to analyze input to schedule activities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16-18, Carter further discloses sending, by the at least one processor, an updated schedule to a scheduler based on the trigger or the notification to the GPT scheduler (see paragraphs 66-67, updating scheduled send message to a particular date/time; also see paragraph 55, the scheduled messaging module 312 includes an NLP that includes LLM); further comprising: retrieving, by the at least one processor, calendar information from a calendar module using the updated schedule (paragraph 53, “calendar system 320 can provide the scheduled messaging module 312 with status/availability information for the user 302 and/or people 304”); feeding, by the at least one processor, the calendar information comprising natural language into the GPT scheduler to compute the next execution date / time (see paragraphs 53 and 66-67, updating scheduled send message to a particular date/time; also see paragraph 55, the scheduled messaging module 312 includes an NLP that includes LLM); further comprising: assessing, by the at least one processor, the calendar information to compute the next execution date / time (paragraph 53, “calendar system 320 can provide the scheduled messaging module 312 with status/availability information for the user 302 and/or people 304. Thus, when the scheduling criteria 314 for a happy birthday message to a given person 304 requires that the person's status change to on-line from offline or focus time and that the system wait 15 minutes, a change in that person's status may be identified via the calendar system.”).
Regarding claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20, Carter fails to explicitly disclose, however, Lanning further teaches wherein the performing the prompt engineering comprises sending instructions from the GPT scheduler to a GPT model, causing the GPT model to act as a scheduler service (Lanning: paragraphs 7-9, using a pre-trained generative model to analyze the schedule activities included in the input), wherein the performing the prompt engineering comprises providing, by the GPT model, the next execution date / time when a recurrence is received (Lanning: paragraphs 7-9, using a pre-trained generative model to analyze the schedule activities included in the input).
Since Carter and Lanning are analogous in the art because they are from the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the known technique of utilizing a GPT to analyze input to schedule activities. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable since the use of that known technique provides the rationale to arrive at a conclusion of obviousness. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Carter further discloses wherein the receiving of the trigger and/or the notification comprises receiving, by the at least one processor, the notification in natural language format for the next execution date/time (process in figures 5A-B and also see discussion in claims 1-4 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. (USPG 2020/0175478) teach a sentence attention modeling for event scheduling using AI that is considered pertinent to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN X VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7631. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
/HUYEN X VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights