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 .
Status of Claim
This action is in reply to the election of restriction filed on 28 of May 2026.
The following is a first action on the merits. In response to Examiner's restriction requirement, on 05/28/2026. Applicant elected group I, claims 1-13 and withdrew from consideration group II, claims 14-20. Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant's election without traverse of the non-elected Claims in the reply filed on 07/27/2026 is acknowledged. Of the pending claims, claims 1-14 are examined and rejected below.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 11, and 13 are objected to as being currently rejected as below, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 and 112 rejections set forth in the action. The prior art of record most closely resembling the applicant’s claimed invention includes Rapp et. al. (US 20110074697), Muser et. al. (US 20190050786), Guo et. al. (US 20190052720) and Carter et. al. (US 20150006422 ).
Rapp teaches a computing device with a display simultaneously displays a plurality of user-repositionable user interface objects with one or more activation regions. The device receives a first input from the user. Based at least in part on the first input, the device determines a first plurality of candidate actions for manipulating a user interface object. The device performs a first candidate action of the first plurality of candidate actions as determined in accordance with the first ordering. After performing the first candidate action, the device undoes the first candidate action, receives a third input that is a repetition of the first input, and determines a second plurality of candidate. The second plurality of candidate actions is ordered such that second candidate action in the second plurality of candidate actions has a higher position than the first candidate action in the second ordering. The device performs the second candidate action.
Muser teaches computer methods and systems that optimally assign resources for facilitating the execution of tasks. The methods and systems filter available resources for executing a task based on at least one criterion, to produce a set of selected resources. The methods and systems, for each of the selected resources, calculate an impact value associated with assigning the respective selected resource to execute the task. The methods and systems rank the selected resources according to the calculated impact values and generate an optimized schedule for the task based on the ranking of the selected resources. The methods and systems may further program a computer application or cause operation of a device in accordance with the generated optimized schedule for executing the task.
Guo teaches methods, systems, and machine readable mediums which provide for retrieval, ranking, and display of candidates that are more likely to respond to employment inquiries in an employment search graphical user interface (GUI). The system may employ a machine learning algorithm which may calculate a score for each member of the social networking service that predicts, based upon one or more features how likely the individual is to respond to a message. In some examples, the candidates that are determined to be more likely to respond may be presented as a selectable option in the GUI.
Carter teaches a computer-based system for presenting employment analysis and recommendation is disclosed using an employment matching server system, operatively coupled to a public network, wherein the employment matching server system is configured to: receive a job seeker's data and generate a job seeker's profile, receive an employer's data and generate a true employer's profile and calculate a compatibility value generated from correlating the job seeker's profile with the true employer's profile, such correlation resulting in a potential match if the compatibility value meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold; in the event of a potential match, present the data associated with the employer and the true employer's profile to the job seeker based on one or more of the compatibility values, and present the data associated with the job seeker and the job seeker's profile to the employer based on one or more of the compatibility values; and use a user interface device that is configured to enable the job seeker and the employer to evaluate the potential match
None of the above prior art explicitly teaches “eliminating at least one of the icons upon selection of the first candidate based on a GPS location of a user terminal of at least one candidate corresponding to the at least one of the icons”, “eliminating at least one of the icons upon selection of the first candidate based on at least one digital calendar entry of at least one candidate corresponding to the at least one of the icons”, “eliminating at least one of the icons upon selection of the first candidate based on a practice specialty of at least one candidate corresponding to the at least one of the icons”, “automatically rearranging the plurality of icons on the graphical user interface based at least in part on tracked movements of user terminals corresponding to multiple of the plurality of candidates”, and these are the reasons which adequately reflect the Examiner's opinion as to why Claims 2-6 and 8 are allowable over the prior art of record, and are objected to as provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not disclose “rearranging icons on a GUI based on different conditions”. At best, the specification discloses that arranging icons for the optimal candidates according to their fit for the matter being filled, see ¶96-97. It is not clear that rearranging the icons take place after the original arrangement. Therefore, the specification fails to disclose to the level of specificity nor expressly or inherently explains the term.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7, and 9-12 inherit the deficiencies of the independent Claim and thus are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-13 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.
At Step 1 the claims fall under one of the four statutory categories. The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “arranging a plurality of icons corresponding to a plurality of candidates on the graphical user interface; receiving a selection of a first candidate of the plurality of candidates from a user using the graphical user interface; determining, by a processor, an availability of the first candidate over a predetermined time period; and automatically rearranging the plurality of icons on the graphical user interface for selection of a second candidate based at least in part of the availability of the first candidate”, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claim 1 are directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” such as “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-13 contain the same abstract idea with respect to claims 1 and 15 and they further limit the abstract idea.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claim 1 recites additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claim 1 recites additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Further, the remaining additional element(s) italicized above reflect insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements boldened and underlined above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶43-45 “Figure 2 illustrates a representative diagram of an example embodiment of a user terminal 14. As illustrated, a user terminal 14 can include a terminal processor 30 and a terminal memory 32. The terminal processor 30 is configured to execute user instructions programmed into and/or stored by the terminal memory 32. The user instructions can be received from and/or periodically updated by the central server 12 in accordance with the methods discussed below. As described in more detail below, many of the steps of the methods described herein can be stored as instructions in the terminal memory 32 and executed by the terminal processor 30. As illustrated, each of the plurality of user terminals 14 includes one or more user input device 38, a display 40, a peripheral interface 42, one or more other output device 44, and a network interface 46 in communication with the terminal processor 30. The user input device 38 can include any mechanism for providing a user input to the terminal processor 30, for example, a keyboard, a mouse, a touch screen, a microphone and/or suitable voice recognition application, or another input mechanism. The display 40 can include any conventional display mechanism such as a cathode ray tube (CRT), a flat panel display, a touch screen, or another display mechanism. Thus, as can be understood, the user input device 38 and/or the display 40 and/or any other suitable element can be considered a GUI 25. The peripheral interface 42 can include the hardware, firmware, and/or other software necessary for communication with various peripheral devices, such as media drives (e.g., magnetic disk or optical disk drives), other processing devices, or any other input source used as described herein. Likewise, the other output device 44 can optionally include similar media drive mechanisms, other processing devices or other output destinations capable of providing information to a user of the user terminal 14, such as speakers, LEDs, tactile outputs, etc. The network interface 46 can comprise hardware, firmware and/or software that allows the terminal processor 30 to communicate with other devices via wired or wireless networks 16, whether local or wide area, private or public. For example, such networks 16 can include the World Wide Web or Internet, or private enterprise networks, or the like”.
As a result, claim 1 does not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (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.
Claims 2-13 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B 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. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness
Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of US 20190050786 to Muser et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Muser”) in view of US 20110074697 to Rapp et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Rapp”).
(A) As per Claim 1:
Muser expressly discloses:
receiving a selection of a first candidate of the plurality of candidates from a user using the graphical user interface; determining, by a processor, an availability of the first candidate over a predetermined time period; (Muser ¶23 the user 105 may then use the rankings and impact values, along with other knowledge and context possessed by the user 105, to select a particular resource candidate to schedule for executing the task. For example, the step or module 150 may present the most suitable resource candidates to the user 105 via the example user interface of FIG. 1B. The example user interface of FIG. 1B presents each of the most suitable resource candidates together with the candidate's availability (as a star ranking) and the candidate's matching skill level for performing the task (as a percentage). The user 105, via the example user interface, may then highlight one of the presented candidates (e.g., candidate Benoit as shown) and select the “Accept” button to select that candidate to schedule for executing the task).
Although Muser teaches automatically determines the best resource candidates to assign for executing a task in order to optimize the impact on an overall schedule, it doesn’t expressly disclose arranging and rearranging icons once objects (i.e. icons) have been chosen, however Rapp teaches:
arranging a plurality of icons corresponding to a plurality of candidates on the graphical user interface; (Rapp ¶163 in FIG. 4C, a first input on the touch-sensitive surface 451 includes a contact 462 associated with an object activation region 464 for a respective user interface object 466 of a plurality of user interface objects (e.g., circle user interface object 467 and triangle user interface object 468) displayed on the display).
automatically rearranging the plurality of icons on the graphical user interface for selection of a second candidate based at least in part of the availability of the first candidate; (Rapp ¶163 subsequent movement 469 of the contact 460 across the touch-sensitive surface 451 to new contact location. This movement of the contact on the touch sensitive surface corresponds to movement 470 of the user interface objects 466 across the display to a respective position on the display that is proximate to a first guide 472 and a second guide 474, and the device moves the user interface object 466 to the respective position).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have modified Muser’s select a particular resource candidate to schedule for executing the task and have an object activation region for a respective user interface of Rapp as both are analogous art which teach solutions to highlight one of the presented candidates as taught in Muser and further to have subsequent movement of the contact across the touch-sensitive surface to new contact location as taught in Rapp.
(B) As per Claim 9:
Muser expressly discloses:
generating the graphical user interface via an application downloaded to a user terminal; (Muser ¶33 For example, if the selected resource is a person, the scheduling module 260 (via network 240) may communicate with a calendar application executing on the resource's mobile device 276).
(C) As per Claim 10:
Muser expressly discloses:
automatically placing an entry in a digital calendar associated with the first candidate upon selection of the first candidate; (Muser ¶25 for example, if an assigned resource is a person, step or module 160 may automatically update an automated calendar application for that person to indicate that person is now scheduled to execute the task at the scheduled time period (and unavailable for other tasks)).
(D) As per Claim 12:
Muser expressly discloses:
wherein determining the availability of the first candidate includes accessing a digital calendar associated with the first candidate; (Muser ¶25 for example, if an assigned resource is a person, step or module 160 may automatically update an automated calendar application for that person to indicate that person is now scheduled to execute the task at the scheduled time period (and unavailable for other tasks)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571)272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 8/21/2026000
Prosecution Insights