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 the initial office action has been issued in response to patent application, 19/013594, filed on 08 January 2025 with a provisional date of 25 April 2018. Claims 21-40, as preliminary amended, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The information disclosure statement filed 01/10/2025 (9 pages), 01/10/2025 (12 pages), 04/24/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
The information disclosure statement filed 01/10/2025 (9 pages) fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the reference to Non-Patent Literature Document 8 are deemed improper citations. Applicant has failed to, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.98(B)(e)(v), identify Non-patent literature date. Further, the applicant has failed to, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.98(B)(2)(b), submit the required copies of each cited non-patent literature publication, or the portion wherein which caused it to be listed. See MPEP 609.01. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re- submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 21-40:
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) storing user schedules/historical stress data, estimating the first users stress level at different times, presenting graphical representation of estimated first user stress levels.
The limitation of estimating the first users stress level at different times, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “database” and “graphical interface”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements are generic computer components claimed to perform their basic functions of storing, estimating, presenting data. The recitation of the graphical interface limitations amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, such as using a computer program to estimating the first user’s stress level or to present estimating the first user’s stress level. Taking the elements both individually and as a combination, the computer components at each step of the management process perform purely generic computer functions. The claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “graphical interface” to perform both the presenting steps amount to no more than mere instructions using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 of this title, 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 21-26, 29, 31, 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (US2018/0107984 A1, publish date 04/19/2018) in view of White et al. (US2018/0107943 A1, file date 10/17/2016).
Claim 21:
With respect to claim 21, Bender et al. discloses a method for managing a system user's schedule (a system for managing electronic calendars to reduce user stress, to determine an optimal scheduling of the group event based on the determined stress elevating factors, 0005) (Figures 2, 3 and 5), the method comprising the steps of:
storing user schedules in a database including a first user's schedule for upcoming activities (records the calendar event data in the calendar event database 68 for each user computer device 90, 94. 0041);
storing historical stress data for the first user indicating prior stress levels for the first user associated with the first user's prior activities (stress logging module 66 to generate stress profiles for each user. 0043) (the stress elevating factors stored in the stress logging module 66 to determine if one or more stress elevating factors are associated with the new calendar event of any of the intended participants, 0045) (the calendar management device 60 may detect certain undesirable stress-elevating patterns based on a user's stress profile in the stress logging module 66, 0046) (Historic data from the stress logging module 66, 0071);
estimating the first user's stress level at different times during a future period (to receive group event information for a group event to be electronically calendared, 0005) based on the first user's schedule for upcoming activities and the first
user's historical stress data (the calendar management device 60 determines whether the new calendar event is likely to result in an undesirable elevation in any of the intended participant's stress levels. the calendar management device 60 may detect certain undesirable stress-elevating patterns based on a user's stress profile in the stress logging module 66, and may determine that the new calendar event is likely to result in an undesirable elevation in the user's stress levels. threshold probability levels can be adjusted based on the users of a particular system and the scheduling and stress reducing outcomes desired, 0046); and
presenting a graphical interface including a time line corresponding to the
future period and a user's schedule for upcoming activities during the future
period (a user's electronic calendar, Figure 5) , the interface including graphical representations of estimated first user stress levels during different time slots along the time line (User A experiences a medium stress level when meeting with a User B, When User B's meeting request comes through to the calendar management device 60 (e.g., from user B's calendar module 92), the scheduling optimization module 70 will automatically recommend an alternative scheduling option to User B, so that User A can have a break between meetings., 0069) (The calendar management device 60 has learned that User A experiences elevated stress during any meetings that are over 60 minutes with User D as the chair (i.e., leader), calendar management device 60 presents an alternative scheduling option to User D that would result in a meeting of only 60 minutes, 0070) (Historic data from the stress logging module 66 indicates that neither the topic of the meeting, nor the attendees, cause User A to experience any elevated stress levels. Accordingly, the calendar management device 60 makes no recommendations to alter the calendaring of User E's meeting, 0071).
White et al. teaches the stress assessment tool 340 may be configured to predict a future periodic stress score of end-user 304 based on activity data of end-user 304 (0050), presenting a graphical interface including a time line corresponding to the
future period and a user's schedule for upcoming activities during the future
period (a calendar 512 including activities scheduled in the past, present, and future for the end-user in GUI 510, 0052) (Figure 5).
Bender et al. and White et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of calendar/scheduling user actives.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use White et al. in Bender et al. to predict a future periodic stress score of end-user 304 based on activity data of end-user 304, analyze the calendar data 328 to identify activities that are scheduled in the future in the end-user's calendar. (see White et al. 0005)
Claim 22:
With respect to claim 22, Bender et al. discloses further including the steps of, for at least a subset of the first user's scheduled upcoming activities, for each of the subset of
activities, storing other activity options that may be swapped in for the upcoming activity
in the database (if a user's profile indicates that 30 minute meetings usually create low stress for the user, 60 minute meetings create medium stress for the user, and meetings with the topic “Matter A” usually create medium stress for the user, 0046), receiving user selection of one of the scheduled activities presented on
the graphical interface and presenting a list of activity options that may be swapped in
for the selected one of the scheduled activities (If it is determined at step 316 that the new calendar event is changeable, then the calendar management device 60 may determine one or more alternative scheduling options at step 324. scheduling options determined at step 324 are presented to the user (e.g., initiator of meeting). may present the option of a 30 minute meeting to a user via the user's calendar interface (e.g., a pop up screen recommending a rescheduling of the meeting). receives a scheduling option from the user, may present the user (e.g. meeting initiator) with additional options, 0051-0054).
Claim 23:
With respect to claim 23, Bender et al. discloses further including receiving selection of one of the list of activity options on the list and swapping the selected option into the first user's schedule (If it is determined at step 316 that the new calendar event is changeable, then the calendar management device 60 may determine one or more alternative scheduling options at step 324. scheduling options determined at step 324 are presented to the user (e.g., initiator of meeting). may present the option of a 30 minute meeting to a user via the user's calendar interface (e.g., a pop up screen recommending a rescheduling of the meeting). receives a scheduling option from the user, may present the user (e.g. meeting initiator) with additional options, 0051-0054).
Claim 24:
With respect to claim 24, Bender et al. discloses further including, upon swapping a
selected option into the first user's schedule, the activity that is replaced by the swapped option is rescheduled to a different time slot for the first user (A User C has scheduled a group meeting for 10:00 AM in which User A will present to the group. User B has requested a 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM meeting, in which User A will be present. The calendar management device 60 has learned that back to back medium level stress meetings usually result in User A experiences a high level of stress by the end of the second meeting, and that User A should have a 15 minute break between such meetings to reduce User A's stress. When User B's meeting request comes through to the calendar management device 60 (e.g., from user B's calendar module 92), the scheduling optimization module 70 will automatically recommend an alternative scheduling option to User B, so that User A can have a break between meetings. 0069).
Claim 25:
With respect to claim 25, Bender et al. discloses further including, upon modifying the first user's scheduled activities, re-estimating the first user's stress level at different times during the future period and updating the graphical representations of estimated first user stress levels along the time line (stress tracking data and calendar event data (including event data related to the new calendar event) are recorded over time in the same manner as in steps 302 and 304, and the steps 306-322 or 306-330 are repeated. In this way, the present invention provides a “learning loop” wherein stress tracking data related to new calendar events can be added to the system to enable the calendar management device 60 to continuously improve the accuracy of user stress profiles, 0056).
White et al. teaches re-estimating the first user's stress level at different times during the future period and updating the graphical representations of estimated first user stress levels along the time line (GUI 806 includes a graph 810 indicating the end-user's periodic stress score over time. Graphs 808 and 810 are visually presented side-by-side such that the end-user may easily compare them and visualize the effects of the intervention activity on the periodic stress score, 0058) (Figure 8).
Bender et al. and White et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of calendar/scheduling user actives.
The motivation for combining Bender et al. and White et al. is recited in claim 21.
Claim 26:
With respect to claim 26, Bender et al. discloses wherein the graphical representations of estimated first user stress levels include color coding to indicate different levels of stress corresponding to different time slots (Figure 5).
White et al. teaches wherein the graphical representations of estimated first user stress levels include color coding to indicate different levels of stress corresponding to different time slots (Figure 5).
Bender et al. and White et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of calendar/scheduling user actives.
The motivation for combining Bender et al. and White et al. is recited in claim 21.
Claim 29:
With respect to claim 29, Bender et al. discloses further including automatically identifying at least one change to the first user's scheduled activities during the future period which is estimated to reduce the first user's stress level and indicating the change to the first user's scheduled activities via the graphical representation (the scheduling optimization module 70 automatically blocks off time in a user's calendar to provide blocks of recovery or de-stressing time, 0036) (the calendar management device 60 may automatically block off a period of time on a user's calendar after the new calendar event in order to introduce a period of stress relief or rest into the user's schedule, 0050) (back to back medium level stress meetings , the scheduling optimization module 70 will automatically recommend an alternative scheduling option to User B, so that User A can have a break between meetings. 0069).
Claim 31:
With respect to claim 31, Bender et al. discloses wherein stress level is one user condition that is represented on the graphical representation (the calendar management device 60 may also present the user with a stress level indicator in accordance with step 320 to assist the user in making scheduling decisions, 0053), the database further storing historical data related to at least a second user condition corresponding to prior user (stress logging module 66 to generate stress profiles for each user. 0043) (to determine if one or more stress elevating factors are associated with the new calendar event of any of the intended participants, 30 minute meetings usually create low stress for the user, 60 minute meetings create medium stress for the user, and meetings with the topic “Matter A” usually create medium stress for the user, 0045) the method further including estimating the first user's second user condition at different times during the future period based on the first user's schedule for upcoming activities and the first user's historical stress data, the step of presenting a graphical interface including graphical representations of estimated first user second user condition during different time slots along the time line (user's profile indicates that 30 minute meetings usually create low stress for the user, 60 minute meetings create medium stress for the user, and meetings with the topic “Matter A” usually create medium stress for the user, then the calendar management device 60 may decide that a 30 minute meeting on the topic of “Matter A” is acceptable, but a 60 minute meeting on the same topic would likely result in an undesirable elevation in the user's stress levels, 0046) (User A experiences a medium stress level when meeting with a User B, When User B's meeting request comes through to the calendar management device 60 (e.g., from user B's calendar module 92), the scheduling optimization module 70 will automatically recommend an alternative scheduling option to User B, so that User A can have a break between meetings., 0069) (The calendar management device 60 has learned that User A experiences elevated stress during any meetings that are over 60 minutes with User D as the chair (i.e., leader), calendar management device 60 presents an alternative scheduling option to User D that would result in a meeting of only 60 minutes, 0070) (Historic data from the stress logging module 66 indicates that neither the topic of the meeting, nor the attendees, cause User A to experience any elevated stress levels. Accordingly, the calendar management device 60 makes no recommendations to alter the calendaring of User E's meeting, 0071).
Claim 34:
With respect to claim 34, Bender et al. discloses wherein the future period covers a
substantial portion of a day period (Figure 5).
Claim 35:
With respect to claim 35, Bender et al. discloses wherein icons associated with each of the scheduled activities are selectable via the interface to obtain additional information
associated with the scheduled activity (Figure 5).
White et al. teaches wherein icons associated with each of the scheduled activities are selectable via the interface to obtain additional information associated with the scheduled activity (Figure 5).
Bender et al. and White et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of calendar/scheduling user actives.
The motivation for combining Bender et al. and White et al. is recited in claim 21.
Claim 36:
With respect to claim 36, Bender et al. discloses wherein the graphical representations of stress level are only presented for estimated stress levels about a threshold stress level (The calendar management device 60 further determines a threshold stress level above which each user is determined to have an elevated stress level. This threshold stress level can be based on standard threshold stress levels taken from a look-up table, and/or may be customized based on user characteristics., 0042) (that threshold probability levels can be adjusted based on the users of a particular system and the scheduling and stress reducing outcomes desired. For example, the calendar management device 60 may determine that a 50% probability of increased stress over a particular threshold value is acceptable, while anything more than that is considered an undesirable probability of increased stress, the system may rate stress levels for events (e.g., low stress, medium stress, high stress) and may attempt to avoid certain combinations of events which lead to elevated stress ratings (e.g., adding two medium stress level events is undesirable, while adding a low stress event and a medium stress event is acceptable), 0046).
Claim 37:
With respect to claim 37, Bender et al. discloses further including receiving a request from the first user via the interface to improve the first user's future period and, in response to the request, identifying at least one schedule change that is estimated to reduce the first user's stress level and presenting the at least one schedule change via the interface (User D sends a 90 minute meeting request to the calendar management device 60, including User A as a intended participant. The calendar management device 60 has learned that User A experiences elevated stress during any meetings that are over 60 minutes with User D as the chair (i.e., leader). The calendar management device 60 presents an alternative scheduling option to User D that would result in a meeting of only 60 minutes, 0070).
Claim 38:
With respect to claim 38, Bender et al. discloses wherein the step of identifying at least one schedule change includes identifying a future time at which at least one of the
scheduled activities can be rescheduled (the calendar management device 60 can facilitate rescheduling of changeable calendar events in light of any unchangeable calendar events to optimize the user's schedule while reducing unnecessary stress, 0050) (the calendar management device 60 may present the option of a 30 minute meeting to a user via the user's calendar interface (e.g., a pop up screen recommending a rescheduling of the meeting), 0052).
Claim 39:
With respect to claim 39, Bender et al. discloses a method for managing a system user's schedule (a system for managing electronic calendars to reduce user stress, to determine an optimal scheduling of the group event based on the determined stress elevating factors, 0005) (Figures 2, 3 and 5), the method
comprising the steps of:
storing user schedules in a database including a first user's schedule for
upcoming activities (records the calendar event data in the calendar event database 68 for each user computer device 90, 94. 0041);
storing historical user condition data for the first user indicating prior user condition for the first user associated with the first user's prior activities (stress logging module 66 to generate stress profiles for each user. 0043) (the stress elevating factors stored in the stress logging module 66 to determine if one or more stress elevating factors are associated with the new calendar event of any of the intended participants, 0045) (the calendar management device 60 may detect certain undesirable stress-elevating patterns based on a user's stress profile in the stress logging module 66, 0046) (Historic data from the stress logging module 66, 0071);
estimating the first user's user condition level at different times during a future
period (to receive group event information for a group event to be electronically calendared, 0005) based on the first user's schedule for upcoming activities and the first user's historical user condition data (the calendar management device 60 determines whether the new calendar event is likely to result in an undesirable elevation in any of the intended participant's stress levels. the calendar management device 60 may detect certain undesirable stress-elevating patterns based on a user's stress profile in the stress logging module 66, and may determine that the new calendar event is likely to result in an undesirable elevation in the user's stress levels. threshold probability levels can be adjusted based on the users of a particular system and the scheduling and stress reducing outcomes desired, 0046); and
presenting a graphical interface including a time line corresponding to the future
period (a user's electronic calendar, Figure 5) and a user's schedule for upcoming activities during the future period, the interface including graphical representations of estimated first user, user condition during different time slots along the time line (User A experiences a medium stress level when meeting with a User B, When User B's meeting request comes through to the calendar management device 60 (e.g., from user B's calendar module 92), the scheduling optimization module 70 will automatically recommend an alternative scheduling option to User B, so that User A can have a break between meetings., 0069) (The calendar management device 60 has learned that User A experiences elevated stress during any meetings that are over 60 minutes with User D as the chair (i.e., leader), calendar management device 60 presents an alternative scheduling option to User D that would result in a meeting of only 60 minutes, 0070) (Historic data from the stress logging module 66 indicates that neither the topic of the meeting, nor the attendees, cause User A to experience any elevated stress levels. Accordingly, the calendar management device 60 makes no recommendations to alter the calendaring of User E's meeting, 0071).
White et al. teaches the stress assessment tool 340 may be configured to predict a future periodic stress score of end-user 304 based on activity data of end-user 304 (0050), presenting a graphical interface including a time line corresponding to the
future period and a user's schedule for upcoming activities during the future
period (a calendar 512 including activities scheduled in the past, present, and future for the end-user in GUI 510, 0052) (Figure 5).
Bender et al. and White et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of calendar/scheduling user actives.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use White et al. in Bender et al. to predict a future periodic stress score of end-user 304 based on activity data of end-user 304, analyze the calendar data 328 to identify activities that are scheduled in the future in the end-user's calendar. (see White et al. 0005)
Claim 40:
With respect to claim 40, Bender et al. discloses a method for managing a system user's schedule (a system for managing electronic calendars to reduce user stress, to determine an optimal scheduling of the group event based on the determined stress elevating factors, 0005) (Figures 2, 3 and 5), the method
comprising the steps of:
storing user schedules in a database including a first user's schedule for
upcoming activities (records the calendar event data in the calendar event database 68 for each user computer device 90, 94. 0041);
storing historical user condition data for the first user indicating prior user condition for the first user associated with the first user's prior activities (stress logging module 66 to generate stress profiles for each user. 0043) (the stress elevating factors stored in the stress logging module 66 to determine if one or more stress elevating factors are associated with the new calendar event of any of the intended participants, 0045) (the calendar management device 60 may detect certain undesirable stress-elevating patterns based on a user's stress profile in the stress logging module 66, 0046) (Historic data from the stress logging module 66, 0071);
estimating the first user's user condition level at different times during a future
period (to receive group event information for a group event to be electronically calendared, 0005) based on the first user's schedule for upcoming activities and the first user's historical user condition data (the calendar management device 60 determines whether the new calendar event is likely to result in an undesirable elevation in any of the intended participant's stress levels. the calendar management device 60 may detect certain undesirable stress-elevating patterns based on a user's stress profile in the stress logging module 66, and may determine that the new calendar event is likely to result in an undesirable elevation in the user's stress levels. threshold probability levels can be adjusted based on the users of a particular system and the scheduling and stress reducing outcomes desired, 0046); and
presenting a graphical interface including a time line corresponding to the future
period (a user's electronic calendar, Figure 5), and a user's schedule for upcoming activities during the future period, the interface including graphical representations of estimated first user, user condition during different time slots along the time line (User A experiences a medium stress level when meeting with a User B, When User B's meeting request comes through to the calendar management device 60 (e.g., from user B's calendar module 92), the scheduling optimization module 70 will automatically recommend an alternative scheduling option to User B, so that User A can have a break between meetings., 0069) (The calendar management device 60 has learned that User A experiences elevated stress during any meetings that are over 60 minutes with User D as the chair (i.e., leader), calendar management device 60 presents an alternative scheduling option to User D that would result in a meeting of only 60 minutes, 0070) (Historic data from the stress logging module 66 indicates that neither the topic of the meeting, nor the attendees, cause User A to experience any elevated stress levels. Accordingly, the calendar management device 60 makes no recommendations to alter the calendaring of User E's meeting, 0071);
receiving a request from the first user via the interface to suggest at least one
change to the first user's schedule that is estimated to improve the first user's user
condition during the future period and, in response to the request, identifying at least
one schedule change that is estimated to improve the first user's user condition and
presenting the at least one schedule change via the interface (User D sends a 90 minute meeting request to the calendar management device 60, including User A as a intended participant. The calendar management device 60 has learned that User A experiences elevated stress during any meetings that are over 60 minutes with User D as the chair (i.e., leader). The calendar management device 60 presents an alternative scheduling option to User D that would result in a meeting of only 60 minutes, 0070).
White et al. teaches the stress assessment tool 340 may be configured to predict a future periodic stress score of end-user 304 based on activity data of end-user 304 (0050), presenting a graphical interface including a time line corresponding to the
future period and a user's schedule for upcoming activities during the future
period (a calendar 512 including activities scheduled in the past, present, and future for the end-user in GUI 510, 0052) (Figure 5).
Bender et al. and White et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of calendar/scheduling user actives.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use White et al. in Bender et al. to predict a future periodic stress score of end-user 304 based on activity data of end-user 304, analyze the calendar data 328 to identify activities that are scheduled in the future in the end-user's calendar. (see White et al. 0005)
Claims 27, 28, 30, 32, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bender et al. (US2018/0107984 A1, publish date 04/19/2018) in view of White et al. (US2018/0107943 A1, file date 10/17/2016) further in view of Sasaki et al. (US2013/0252591 A1, publish date 09/26/2013).
Claim 27:
With respect to claim 27, the combination of Bender et al. and White et al. discloses the limitations of claim 21, as addressed.
Neither Bender et al. nor White et al. discloses further including obtaining environmental forecast information for locations that the first user is scheduled to be in during the future period and wherein the step of estimating the first user's stress level further includes considering the environmental forecast information during the future period as claimed.
However, Sasaki et al. teaches such as a summary of daily events may be displayed on the smart notification GUI 211, such as appointments, planned events, etc. a notification of a best time to leave for a next scheduled appointment or event may be displayed, along with other appropriate information (e.g., traffic is getting worse, weather is getting worse/better, etc.). (0033) (Figures 4 and 6), further including obtaining environmental forecast information for locations that the first user is scheduled to be in during the future period and wherein the step of estimating the first user's stress level further includes considering the environmental forecast information during the future period (based on the known estimated arrival time and the destination local traffic and weather information, the smart engine 122 determines whether a user will be on time for a scheduled event (e.g., meeting, reservations, appointment, etc.) based on the services information 130 and historical information collected over time (e.g., driving habits, estimated driving times, etc.). If the smart engine 122 determines that the combined information will affect getting to the scheduled event on time, an alert or alarm may be triggered on the smart alarm GUI 111 informing a user that they have to leave: now, within a period of time (e.g., 5 minutes, 10 minutes, etc.) in order to make the scheduled event, appointment, etc. 0028) (the alert communicated on the smart alarm GUI 111 may suggest actions for a user to take, such as send an email or text message to appointment participants (which may occur on the electronic device 105, on the cloud server 120, or a combination of the electronic device 105 and the cloud server 120), schedule a new event, 0029)
Bender et al., White et al., Sasaki et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of calendar/scheduling user actives.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sasaki et al. in Bender et al. and White et al. to rather having a user a user opening up many separate applications or browser pages, the one or more embodiments learn the user's preferences and automatically bring together the relevant service information. assist users in making informed decisions about their day, enhances user experience by providing a user with richer information to plan the rest of their day, and enhances user experience by accounting for user behavior and/or history of usage of various electronic device or application features. (0024)
Claim 28:
With respect to claim 28, the combination of Bender et al., White et al., and Sasaki et al. discloses the limitations of claim 27, as addressed.
Sasaki et al. wherein the graphical interface includes environmental representations of the environmental forecast during different time slots during the future period (weather Currently scattered clouds, Noon, Evening, Figure 6, 612).
Bender et al., White et al., Sasaki et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of calendar/scheduling user actives.
The motivation for combing Bender et al., White et al., and Sasaki et al. is recited in claim 27.
Claim 30:
With respect to claim 30, the combination of Bender et al., White et al., and Sasaki et al. discloses the limitations of claim 28, as addressed.
Bender et al. discloses further including receiving user input accepting the indicated change, making the change in the first user's scheduled activities and updating the graphical representations of the first user's stress levels on the interface (scheduling options determined at step 324 are presented to the user (e.g., initiator of meeting). the calendar management device 60 receives a scheduling option from the user, Upon receiving an option by a user, the calendar management device 60 implements appropriate changes to one or more user calendars, 0052-0054).
Claim 32:
With respect to claim 32, the combination of Bender et al., White et al., and Sasaki et al. discloses the limitations of claim 27, as addressed.
Bender et al. discloses wherein the second condition includes focus level (as well as decrease the individual's attention level and productivity, 0002) (the calendar management device 60 may determine that a 60 minute meeting on the topic of “Matter A” would be undesirable, but a 30 minute meeting on the same topic would be acceptable, 0051).
Claim 33:
With respect to claim 33, Bender et al. discloses wherein the second condition includes alertness (as well as decrease the individual's attention level and productivity, 0002the number of meetings that can happen sequentially or within a given time period based on an individual's tolerance, 0068).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, (see PTO Form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helai Salehi whose telephone number is 571-270-7468. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Jeff Pwu, can be reached on 571-272-6798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/HELAI SALEHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433
Prosecution Insights