DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed April 22, 2026. Claims 1-2, 5, and 13-14 have been amended. Claims 1-17 are presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant states, “The conditional nature of the ‘if’ step as analyzed has been amended to make it a requirement. This element requires sending a text message (remotely from the computer) which removes the claim from being merely done on a processor. Communication intermediate remote locations is required by amended claim 1 (and thus dependent claims 2-17), thus, with such amendment, the claim overcomes the 35 USC 101 rejection steps.” (1st page of Applicant’s Remarks) The Examiner points out that the additional elements in the claims still operate as generic processing elements that generally operate as intended. The claims remain rejected under § 101.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant argues that the cited references do not address “updating appointment options as displayed to others.” (1st page of Applicant’s Remarks) This limitation was largely addressed by the Rapp reference (in combination with Stuart and Boyd). Specifically regarding Rapp, Applicant argues, “Rapp is relied upon for showing unavailable time slots for multiple service providers referencing Figures 5 and 6. Figure 6 just shows ‘Thomas’ schedule and no other party's schedule. See Fig. 6. While the information may be updated at the website, there is not believed to be any disclosure in any of the references that if said slot (which is now not available), is updated through links in texts to third parties which may be contemplating selecting options of availability as claimed.” (2nd page of Applicant’s Remarks) As seen in figures 5 and 6 of Rapp, Rapp’s available time slots provide links to continue scheduling (Rapp: Fig. 6). Both customers and vendors may review scheduled appointments, including for each employee or service provider (Rapp: ¶¶ 31, 34). Calendar updates are made and reminders are sent in accordance with scheduled appointments (Rapp: ¶ 41; ¶ 53 – “Referring to FIG. 8, a contact data confirmation page in accordance with an example embodiment of the present invention is shown. The customer may review and update the information displayed on the page as appropriate 260. The customer may also specify when a reminder email message is to be sent. Finally, by selecting the "Set Appointment" button, the scheduling process may be completed. The central appointment repository is updated with the appointment information for the selected vendor, service provider, and timeslot.”). Rapp makes schedules and availability and unavailability information accessible to customers, vendors, employees, and service providers, and provides updates regarding scheduled appointments, which at the very least suggests that the available (and unavailable) appointment dates and times may easily be dynamically updated and displayed to anyone, including customers and potential customers. It is further noted that customers and potential customers are just labels for different users. The specific nature of each user does not affect the scope of the claims in terms of any limiting structure or functional features. The rejection is maintained.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to scheduling appointments between people without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Process (claims 1-17)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 1] A method of scheduling an appointment ensuring no conflicting appointments comprising the method of:
a. send a message to one of a customer and a potential customer, said message having information regarding at least a plurality of appointment options obtained from at least a portion of a calendar of a first company representative and unavailable times not selectable as appointment options;
b. and said one of the customer and potential customer selecting an appointment time from the plurality of appointment options through the information as a selected appointment, said computer immediately updates said calendar with the selected appointment on the calendar of the first company representative and said appointment options are immediately updated to not include times within the selected appointment as displayed to all other customers and potential customers viewing appointment options.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. Aside from the general recitation of various tools to facilitate communications, human users can coordinate scheduling with one another. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to scheduling appointments between people, which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing interactions between people (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 includes automatedly scheduling an appointment, the method of:
a. a computer directed to automatedly direct a text to be sent to a phone of one of a customer and a potential customer, said text having a link to view at least a plurality of appointment options at the computer obtained from at least a portion of a calendar;
b. and said one of the customer and potential customer selecting an appointment time from the plurality of appointment options through the link remotely from the computer at the phone as a selected appointment, said computer immediately updates said calendar with the selected appointment displayed on the calendar of the first company representative.
At present, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶ 17).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 2] wherein the one of the customer and potential customer is not presently a customer.
[Claim 4] wherein the information sent to one of a customer and a potential customer relates to a calendar of a company representative physically closest to a zip code of the one of a customer and a potential customer.
[Claim 5] wherein when viewing the calendar, the one of the customer and potential customer selects a different location from their zip code, and then presenting a display of at least a plurality of appointment options obtained from at least a portion of a calendar of a second company representative with unavailable times not selectable as appointment options, and then
if said one of the customer and potential customer selects an appointment time from the plurality of appointment options through the information as a selected appointment, and when selected, immediately updating said calendar with the selected appointment displayed on the calendar of the second company representative and said appointment options are immediately updated to not include times within the selected appointment [It is noted that this step may or may not occur within the scope of the method claim given that it is a conditional limitation.].
[Claim 6] wherein all possible locations of the company are displayed as options for the one of the customer and potential customer to select therefrom.
[Claim 7] wherein the zip code of the one of the customer and potential customer is known when sending the message.
[Claim 8] wherein the calendar and the zip code are known within a customer relationship management system.
[Claim 10] sending notice to the second company representative of new appointment.
[Claim 11] wherein the calendar of the second company representative is displayed to the one of the customer and potential customer with prior commitments having at least in indication related to unavailability as an available appointment.
[Claim 12] wherein prior commitments appear as blocks of unavailable time on the calendar.
[Claim 13] wherein the one of the customer and potential customer selects one of (a) an audio call and (b) a video conference call.
[Claim 14] sending notice to the first company representative of the selected appointment with the one of the customer and potential customer.
[Claim 15] wherein the zip code of the one of the customer and potential customer is known when sending the message.
[Claim 16] wherein the calendar and the zip code are known within a customer relationship management system.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas identified in regard to the independent claims.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. Aside from the general recitation of various tools to facilitate communications, human users can coordinate scheduling with one another. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to scheduling appointments between people, which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of managing interactions between people (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims include the additional elements of their independent claims.
Claim 1 includes automatedly scheduling an appointment, the method of:
a. a computer directed to automatedly direct a text to be sent to a phone of one of a customer and a potential customer, said text having a link to view at least a plurality of appointment options at the computer obtained from at least a portion of a calendar;
b. and said one of the customer and potential customer selecting an appointment time from the plurality of appointment options through the link remotely from the computer at the phone as a selected appointment, said computer immediately updates said calendar with the selected appointment displayed on the calendar of the first company representative.
Claim 2 recites wherein the text further comprises at least one of (a) GIF file on a text viewing screen on the phone and (b) a video which simultaneously plays while maintaining the text viewing screen on the phone.
Claim 3 recites wherein the link is displayed one of during (a) and/or (b) of claim 2 or after one of (a) or (b) has completed while maintaining the text viewing screen on the phone.
Claim 4 further defines the content related to the link sent to the phone.
Claim 5 recites wherein when viewing the calendar on the computer, the one of the customer and potential customer selects a different location from their zip code, and the computer then displays at least a plurality of appointment options at the computer obtained, and then
if said one of the customer and potential customer selects an appointment time from the plurality of appointment options through the link as a selected appointment, and when selected, said computer immediately updating said calendar with the selected appointment displayed on the calendar of the second company representative [It is noted that this step may or may not occur within the scope of the method claim given that it is a conditional limitation.].
Claim 7 recites wherein the zip code of the one of the customer and potential customer is known by the computer when sending the text.
Claim 8 recites wherein the calendar and the zip code are known within a customer relationship management system on the computer.
Claim 9 recites wherein the computer is remote from both the one of the customer and potential customer and the first and second company representatives.
Claim 10 recites sending notice via one of text and email to the second company representative.
Claim 14 recites sending notice via one of text and email to the first company representative.
Claim 15 recites wherein the zip code of the one of the customer and potential customer is known by the computer when sending the text.
Claim 16 recites wherein the calendar and the zip code are known within a customer relationship management system on the computer.
Claim 17 recites wherein the computer is remote from the one of the customer and potential customer and the first company representatives.
It is noted that some of the operations of the additional elements are conditional and/or optional in the method claims (as noted above). At present, the computer and communication means (e.g., via the use of text, texted links, etc.), merely serve to facilitate scheduling communications between people scheduling an appointment. It would be helpful if all recited steps were more positively recited and emphasized the dynamic, interactive nature of the computer, link functionality, scheduling interface, etc.
At present, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶ 17).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuart et al. (WO 2020/237343 A1) in view of Boyd (US 2009/0222519) in view of Rapp et al. (US 2002/0116232).
[Claim 1] Stuart discloses a method of automatedly scheduling an appointment ensuring no conflicting appointments (p. 21: 8-18 – “Preferably, the sales representative 26 is able to edit the preferences information 108 through the sales representative portal 98. When the new lead is received by the management application 18, and based in part on the sales scheduling data for the sales representative 26, the sales representative scheduling module 34 selects one or more possible times for the appointment. In one embodiment, the sales representative scheduling module 34 selects three possible times. Preferably, when selecting the possible time(s), the sales representative scheduling module 34 also takes into account the location of where the job is to be conducted and the locations of the already-scheduled appointments for the sales representative 26.”; p. 23: 11-23 – “Once the sales representative scheduling module 34 has selected one or more possible times for the appointment, this is communicated to the customer 10. This may be done through a sales appointment email that is automatically generated by the management application 18. The sales appointment email may also include the name and contact information for the sales representative 26. The customer 10 is able to select one of the possible times in the sales appointment email by clicking on an appropriate embedded link in the sales appointment email. If none of the possible times are satisfactory to the customer 10, the customer 10 may advise the sales representative scheduling module 34 by clicking on another one of the embedded links in the sales appointment email. In this case, the sales representative scheduling module 34 will, based on similar criteria as described above, select additional possible times for the appointment and send another sales appointment email to the customer 10.“; p. 9: 11-15 – “In one aspect, the invention is a management system for a plurality of participants in a home installation job. The system comprises a server, a database connected to the server, and a plurality of devices in wireless communication with the server. Each of the devices is associated with one of the participants and comprises a graphical user interface. Each of the devices is configured to access one or more portals served by the server for display on the graphical user interface.”; p. 10: 1-5 – “In a further aspect, the action is the automated scheduling of an appointment for one of the participants (“the one participant”). The scheduling comprises the server polling a calendar application associated with the participant, the calendar application recording available appointment times for the one participant, and the server selecting one of the appointment times.”) comprising the method of:
a. a computer directed to automatedly direct an email to be sent remotely to one of a customer and a potential customer, said email having a link to view at least a plurality of appointment options at the computer obtained from at least a portion of a calendar of a first company representative (p. 23: 11-23 – “Once the sales representative scheduling module 34 has selected one or more possible times for the appointment, this is communicated to the customer 10. This may be done through a sales appointment email that is automatically generated by the management application 18. The sales appointment email may also include the name and contact information for the sales representative 26. The customer 10 is able to select one of the possible times in the sales appointment email by clicking on an appropriate embedded link in the sales appointment email. If none of the possible times are satisfactory to the customer 10, the customer 10 may advise the sales representative scheduling module 34 by clicking on another one of the embedded links in the sales appointment email. In this case, the sales representative scheduling module 34 will, based on similar criteria as described above, select additional possible times for the appointment and send another sales appointment email to the customer 10.“);
b. and said one of the customer and potential customer selecting an appointment time from the plurality of appointment options through the link as a selected appointment, said computer immediately updates said calendar with the selected appointment on the calendar of the first company representative and said appointment options are immediately updated to not include times within the selected appointment (p. 23: 11-23 – “Once the sales representative scheduling module 34 has selected one or more possible times for the appointment, this is communicated to the customer 10. This may be done through a sales appointment email that is automatically generated by the management application 18. The sales appointment email may also include the name and contact information for the sales representative 26. The customer 10 is able to select one of the possible times in the sales appointment email by clicking on an appropriate embedded link in the sales appointment email. If none of the possible times are satisfactory to the customer 10, the customer 10 may advise the sales representative scheduling module 34 by clicking on another one of the embedded links in the sales appointment email. In this case, the sales representative scheduling module 34 will, based on similar criteria as described above, select additional possible times for the appointment and send another sales appointment email to the customer 10.“; p. 23: 24 – p. 24: 6 – “Once the customer 10 has selected one of the possible times, the sales representative scheduling module 34 updates the schedule information 106 for the sales representative 26 to reflect the new appointment. The information associated with the lead (e.g. the name of the customer 10, the location of where the job will be conducted, the nature of the job requested, etc.) is also part of the schedule information 106. Thereafter, the sales representative 26 will be able to view the new appointment (and his or her other already-scheduled appointments) through the sales representative portal 98. The sales representative scheduling module 34 preferably also sends a confirmation email to the customer 10 confirming the appointment.”).
Stuart does not explicitly disclose that the computer is directed to automatedly direct a text to be sent remotely to a phone of one of a customer and a potential customer, said text having the link to view at least a plurality of appointment options at the computer (as opposed to Stuart’s use of an email with links). Boyd allows for meeting invitations to be sent via text (Boyd: ¶ 49 – “According to another preferred embodiment, a notification (e.g., email, RSS, SMS, IM, etc.) is sent to the attendees or guests of the meeting that includes the updated invite information. For example, if one or more users have accepted the invite, they are notified if any changes to the invite are made (e.g., via email). Preferably, each attendee is able to confirm that the changes are acceptable (e.g., they can still attend the meeting at the new location), preferably each attendee can selectively confirm/deny and/or comment regarding each change (e.g., an attendee can indicate the change of venue is acceptable, but the change of time is not). Preferably, the inviter can select to request that the attendees confirm that the changes are acceptable.”) Communications may be conducted via phone (Boyd: ¶ 75 – “The system will preferably notify one or both users of each others [sic] interests so each can consider inviting the other to a networking meeting. Preferably, this is achieved also using the proximity of the users, preferably using geolocation technology (e.g., the member location provided by electronic device such as cell phone, iphone, Blackberry device or the like).”) The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart such that the computer is directed to automatedly direct a text to be sent remotely to a phone of one of a customer and a potential customer, said text having the link to view at least a plurality of appointment options at the computer (as opposed to Stuart’s use of an email with links) in order to make Stuart more versatile in its modes of communication, thereby improving convenience for all participants. Additionally, the substitution of Boyd’s text communications for Stuart’s email communications would have been well within the technical capability of those skilled in the art prior to Applicant’s invention and such a substitution would have yielded predictable and expected results.
Stuart does not explicitly disclose that the link allows the customer or potential customer to view unavailable times not selectable as appointment options and that said computer immediately updates said calendar with the selected appointment displayed on the calendar of the first company representative and said appointment options are immediately updated to not include times within the selected appointment as displayed to all other customers and potential customers viewing appointment options. Rapp discloses that a vendor’s appointment book may be maintained via a vendor-specific web site and URL using a central appointment repository (Rapp: ¶ 42). Rapp also shows available and unavailable time slots for multiple service providers, as seen in Figures 5 and 6:
PNG
media_image1.png
506
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rapp’s available time slots provide links to continue scheduling (Rapp: Fig. 6). Both customers and vendors may review scheduled appointments, including for each employee or service provider (Rapp: ¶¶ 31, 34). Calendar updates are made and reminders are sent in accordance with scheduled appointments (Rapp: ¶ 41; ¶ 53 – “Referring to FIG. 8, a contact data confirmation page in accordance with an example embodiment of the present invention is shown. The customer may review and update the information displayed on the page as appropriate 260. The customer may also specify when a reminder email message is to be sent. Finally, by selecting the "Set Appointment" button, the scheduling process may be completed. The central appointment repository is updated with the appointment information for the selected vendor, service provider, and timeslot.”). Rapp makes schedules and availability and unavailability information accessible to customers, vendors, employees, and service providers, and provides updates regarding scheduled appointments, which at the very least suggests that the available (and unavailable) appointment dates and times may easily be dynamically updated and displayed to anyone, including customers and potential customers. It is further noted that customers and potential customers are just labels for different users. The specific nature of each user does not affect the scope of the claims in terms of any limiting structure or functional features.
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart such that the link allows the customer or potential customer to view unavailable times not selectable as appointment options and that said computer immediately updates said calendar with the selected appointment displayed on the calendar of the first company representative and said appointment options are immediately updated to not include times within the selected appointment as displayed to all other customers and potential customers viewing appointment options in order to give the service providers greater flexibility in blocking and unblocking certain slots to provide services (as suggested in ¶¶ 57-59 of Rapp) while allowing potential customers to more conveniently get a general idea of when each of multiple service providers tends to work and providing updates and reminders to all appointment participants to increase the likelihood that an appointment will not be missed.
[Claim 14] Stuart facilitates repeated scheduling of appointments with each of multiple participants (p. 15: 25 – p. 16: 10 – “The system architecture and participants of the preferred embodiment are also illustrated in Fig. 1. Management application 18 hosts a number of portals 98, 100, 102, 104 for certain of the participants in the job. The participants include a sales representative 26, a project coordinator 64, a re-measure contractor 66 and an installer 82, order personnel 78, vendor servers 44 and an inspector 88. At least the sales representative, the project coordinator, the re-measure contractor and the installer each have a device used to access their respective portals. Referring to Fig. 5 the management application 18 also connects as needed to a calendar application 99 (which may be proprietary or a third-party application such as Google Calendar) to support the scheduling functions of the job management system of the invention. The sales representative 26, re-measure contractor 66 and installer devices 82 each connects to the calendar application 99 to upload their availability for job scheduling.”). As seen throughout Stuart, the scheduling process is substantially repeated for a meeting with the customer and each of the respective representatives of the company.
Stuart also updates everyone’s schedules when a meeting is accepted (i.e., selected) by all participants and sends a confirmation email to the customer (p. 23: 24 – p. 24: 6 – “Once the customer 10 has selected one of the possible times, the sales representative scheduling module 34 updates the schedule information 106 for the sales representative 26 to reflect the new appointment. The information associated with the lead (e.g. the name of the customer 10, the location of where the job will be conducted, the nature of the job requested, etc.) is also part of the schedule information 106. Thereafter, the sales representative 26 will be able to view the new appointment (and his or her other already-scheduled appointments) through the sales representative portal 98. The sales representative scheduling module 34 preferably also sends a confirmation email to the customer 10 confirming the appointment.”).
Stuart does not explicitly disclose sending notice via one of text and email to the first company representative of the selected appointment with the one of the customer and potential customer. However, Stuart does disclose that a confirmation email may be sent to the customer (as discussed above). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart to perform the step of sending notice via one of text and email to the first company representative of the selected appointment with the one of the customer and potential customer in order to help ensure that each of the multiple business participants is more conveniently and clearly made aware of each respective pending meeting at which their attendance is expected.
[Claim 15] Stuart discloses wherein the link sent to the phone relates to a calendar of a company representative physically closest to a location of the one of a customer and a potential customer (p. 18: 11-22 – “For example, suppose that the retail store 12 is part of a chain of retail stores (i.e. retail stores 12a, 12b, 12c, each with their respective service areas), with each of the retail stores being associated with two sales representatives (i.e. sales representatives 26a, 26b with retail store 12a, sales representatives 26c, 26d with retail store 12b, and sales representatives 26e, 26f with retail store 12c). If the customer 10 is interested in a door installation at his or her home, and his or her home is located within the service area of retail store 12b, the sales representative assignment module 32 will assign either sales representative 26c or 26d to the lead. If, for example, sales representative 26c is familiar with windows installations and sales representative 26d is familiar with door installations, then the sales representative assignment module 32 will assign sales representative 26d to the lead.” Sales representatives assigned to a service area of a customer’s location are identified to service the customer.). This implies that the location of the one of the customer and potential customer is known by the computer when sending the email with a link with invitation information.
Stuart also obtains an address of a potential customer (p. 10: 10-15 – “In a further aspect, in response to receipt of data comprising information comprising a type of home installation job and an address of a potential customer, the server is configured to access the database to assign a sales representative to the potential customer as a function of the type, the address and a record of geographical regions assigned to a plurality of sales representatives.”).
While Stuart does not explicitly disclose that the address includes a zip code, Boyd explains that a user in search of a vendor and/or meeting may enter the user’s location in the form of at least a zip code (Boyd: ¶¶ 84, 87). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart such that the address includes a zip code so that service providers may be able to more accurately pinpoint the location of their customers and/or where the customer-requested services are to be performed. (The link being sent via text has been addressed specifically by the Stuart-Boyd combination, as explained in the rejection of the independent claim above. The same rationale extends to the dependent claims.)
[Claim 16] Stuart discloses wherein the calendar and the location are known within a customer relationship management system on the computer (p. 18: 11-22 – “For example, suppose that the retail store 12 is part of a chain of retail stores (i.e. retail stores 12a, 12b, 12c, each with their respective service areas), with each of the retail stores being associated with two sales representatives (i.e. sales representatives 26a, 26b with retail store 12a, sales representatives 26c, 26d with retail store 12b, and sales representatives 26e, 26f with retail store 12c). If the customer 10 is interested in a door installation at his or her home, and his or her home is located within the service area of retail store 12b, the sales representative assignment module 32 will assign either sales representative 26c or 26d to the lead. If, for example, sales representative 26c is familiar with windows installations and sales representative 26d is familiar with door installations, then the sales representative assignment module 32 will assign sales representative 26d to the lead.” Sales representatives assigned to a service area of a customer’s location are identified to service the customer.).
Stuart also obtains an address of a potential customer (p. 10: 10-15 – “In a further aspect, in response to receipt of data comprising information comprising a type of home installation job and an address of a potential customer, the server is configured to access the database to assign a sales representative to the potential customer as a function of the type, the address and a record of geographical regions assigned to a plurality of sales representatives.”).
While Stuart does not explicitly disclose that the address includes a zip code, Boyd explains that a user in search of a vendor and/or meeting may enter the user’s location in the form of at least a zip code (Boyd: ¶¶ 84, 87). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart such that the address includes a zip code so that service providers may be able to more accurately pinpoint the location of their customers and/or where the customer-requested services are to be performed. (The link being sent via text has been addressed specifically by the Stuart-Boyd combination, as explained in the rejection of the independent claim above. The same rationale extends to the dependent claims.)
[Claim 17] Stuart discloses wherein the computer is remote from the one of the customer and potential customer and the first company representatives (p. 15: 3-10 – “Each of the participants involved in the lifecycle of the lead is preferably equipped with a remote, network communication-enabled device 28. The device 28 may be portable or stationary and are configured to communicate with the server 20 through a network connection, which may be the same as the network (e.g. the Internet) or some other suitable network. In the case where the device 28 is portable and intended to be carried by the participant from place to place, the device 28 is preferably capable of wireless network communications with the server 20 (e.g. using WiFi, cellular, and/or satellite communications).”; p. 15: 25 – p. 16: 10 – “The system architecture and participants of the preferred embodiment are also illustrated in Fig. 1. Management application 18 hosts a number of portals 98, 100, 102, 104 for certain of the participants in the job. The participants include a sales representative 26, a project coordinator 64, a re-measure contractor 66 and an installer 82, order personnel 78, vendor servers 44 and an inspector 88. At least the sales representative, the project coordinator, the re-measure contractor and the installer each have a device used to access their respective portals. Referring to Fig. 5 the management application 18 also connects as needed to a calendar application 99 (which may be proprietary or a third-party application such as Google Calendar) to support the scheduling functions of the job management system of the invention. The sales representative 26, re-measure contractor 66 and installer devices 82 each connects to the calendar application 99 to upload their availability for job scheduling.”; p. 13: 17 – p. 14: 6 – “Referring to Fig. 1 , in accordance with one embodiment of the invention, a customer 10 expresses an interest in an installation job. The job may include one or more of a door installation, a window installation, or a roofing installation. It is understood that the job may encompass the installation of other products as well. The customer 10 may express interest in the job in a number of ways. For example, the customer 10 may attend at a retail store 12 and express interest to an employee of the retail store 12. Alternatively, the customer 10 may access a website maintained by the retail store 12. Still alternatively, the customer 10 may initiate a phone call with the retail store 12. Regardless of the manner in which the customer 10 expresses interest in the job, certain initial lead information 14 regarding the job is recorded. The initial lead information 14 preferably includes at least the following: the name of the customer 10, contact information for the customer 10, the nature of the job, the location at which the job will be conducted and if applicable the particular store that generated the lead. In one embodiment, the initial lead information 14 is communicated to a third-party server 16, which may be maintained by the retail store 12.”).
Claims 2-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuart et al. (WO 2020/237343 A1) in view of Boyd (US 2009/0222519) in view of Rapp et al. (US 2002/0116232), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Meushar et al. (US 2016/0275458).
[Claim 2] Stuart discloses wherein the one of the customer and potential customer is not presently a customer (col. 21: 10-14 – “ When the new lead is received by the management application 18, and based in part on the sales scheduling data for the sales representative 26, the sales representative scheduling module 34 selects one or more possible times for the appointment. In one embodiment, the sales representative scheduling module 34 selects three possible times.” A new lead is a potential customer and then may subsequently become a customer.).
The Stuart-Boyd combination specifically addresses the use of text to send an invitation via phone, as explained in the rejection of the independent claim above. The same rationale extends to the dependent claims. Stuart does not explicitly disclose that the text further comprises at least one of (a) GIF file on a text viewing screen on the phone and (b) a video which simultaneously plays while maintaining the text viewing screen on the phone. However, Meushar discloses that scheduled events may include virtual meetings including phone calls, conference calls, and video calls (Meushar: ¶¶ 19, 39) and that event invitations may incorporate an image (such as a GIF) or a video file (Meushar: ¶ 97 – “According to an embodiment of the invention, through the dedicated application a user could choose to send designed invitations (e.g., interactive, multimedia, 3D designed invitations, personalized background cover, etc.) to selected events and even to add music (e.g. ringtone/songs/video clip/remix music/play list, etc.) as background music to the invitation. FIGS. 7A and 7B schematically illustrate exemplary screen layouts of such an invitation. In this example, the invitation includes a textured/designed background (e.g., an image file type such as JPG, GIF or any other suitable image/video file type), text, schedule and operation button(s) for the invited user such as “accept”/“deny” and the option to view the event's time sequence on the user's schedule before accepting or denying the invitation.”).
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart such that the text further comprises at least one of (a) GIF file on a text viewing screen on the phone and (b) a video which simultaneously plays while maintaining the text viewing screen on the phone in order to provide inviters (including service providers) with the convenience of being able to adapt the invite form to their personal needs (as suggested in ¶ 97 of Meushar), thereby improving their marketing capabilities.
[Claim 3] Stuart discloses wherein the link is displayed one of during (a) and/or (b) of claim 2 or after one of (a) or (b) has completed while maintaining the text viewing screen on the phone (p. 23: 11-23 – “Once the sales representative scheduling module 34 has selected one or more possible times for the appointment, this is communicated to the customer 10. This may be done through a sales appointment email that is automatically generated by the management application 18. The sales appointment email may also include the name and contact information for the sales representative 26. The customer 10 is able to select one of the possible times in the sales appointment email by clicking on an appropriate embedded link in the sales appointment email. If none of the possible times are satisfactory to the customer 10, the customer 10 may advise the sales representative scheduling module 34 by clicking on another one of the embedded links in the sales appointment email. In this case, the sales representative scheduling module 34 will, based on similar criteria as described above, select additional possible times for the appointment and send another sales appointment email to the customer 10.“). (The link being sent via text has been addressed specifically by the Stuart-Boyd combination, as explained in the rejection of the independent claim above. The same rationale extends to the dependent claims.)
[Claim 4] Stuart discloses wherein the link sent to the phone relates to a calendar of a company representative physically closest to a location of the one of a customer and a potential customer (p. 18: 11-22 – “For example, suppose that the retail store 12 is part of a chain of retail stores (i.e. retail stores 12a, 12b, 12c, each with their respective service areas), with each of the retail stores being associated with two sales representatives (i.e. sales representatives 26a, 26b with retail store 12a, sales representatives 26c, 26d with retail store 12b, and sales representatives 26e, 26f with retail store 12c). If the customer 10 is interested in a door installation at his or her home, and his or her home is located within the service area of retail store 12b, the sales representative assignment module 32 will assign either sales representative 26c or 26d to the lead. If, for example, sales representative 26c is familiar with windows installations and sales representative 26d is familiar with door installations, then the sales representative assignment module 32 will assign sales representative 26d to the lead.” Sales representatives assigned to a service area of a customer’s location are identified to service the customer.).
Stuart also obtains an address of a potential customer (p. 10: 10-15 – “In a further aspect, in response to receipt of data comprising information comprising a type of home installation job and an address of a potential customer, the server is configured to access the database to assign a sales representative to the potential customer as a function of the type, the address and a record of geographical regions assigned to a plurality of sales representatives.”).
While Stuart does not explicitly disclose that the address includes a zip code, Boyd explains that a user in search of a vendor and/or meeting may enter the user’s location in the form of at least a zip code (Boyd: ¶¶ 84, 87). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart such that the address includes a zip code so that service providers may be able to more accurately pinpoint the location of their customers and/or where the customer-requested services are to be performed. (The link being sent via text has been addressed specifically by the Stuart-Boyd combination, as explained in the rejection of the independent claim above. The same rationale extends to the dependent claims.)
[Claim 5] Stuart does not explicitly discloses:
wherein when viewing the calendar on the computer, the one of the customer and potential customer selects a different location from their zip code, and the computer then displays at least a plurality of appointment options at the computer obtained from at least a portion of a calendar of a second company representative with unavailable times not selectable as appointment options, and then
if said one of the customer and potential customer selects an appointment time from the plurality of appointment options through the link as a selected appointment, and when selected, said computer immediately updating said calendar with the selected appointment displayed on the calendar of the second company representative and said appointment options are immediately updated to not include times within the selected appointment.
Rapp allows for different cities to be selected from a drop-down menu, as seen in Figure 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
506
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rapp also correlates each of a merchant’s location and a customer’s location to a “Zip” (i.e., a zip code), as seen in ¶ 74 (Table 3), ¶ 75 (Table 4), and ¶ 77 (Table 6) of Rapp. Rapp discloses that a vendor’s appointment book may be maintained via a vendor-specific web site and URL using a central appointment repository (Rapp: ¶ 42). Rapp also shows available and unavailable time slots for multiple service providers, as seen in Figures 5 and 6:
PNG
media_image1.png
506
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rapp’s available time slots provide links to continue scheduling (Rapp: Fig. 6). Both customers and vendors may review scheduled appointments, including for each employee or service provider (Rapp: ¶¶ 31, 34). Calendar updates are made and reminders are sent in accordance with scheduled appointments (Rapp: ¶ 41; ¶ 53 – “Referring to FIG. 8, a contact data confirmation page in accordance with an example embodiment of the present invention is shown. The customer may review and update the information displayed on the page as appropriate 260. The customer may also specify when a reminder email message is to be sent. Finally, by selecting the "Set Appointment" button, the scheduling process may be completed. The central appointment repository is updated with the appointment information for the selected vendor, service provider, and timeslot.”).
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart
wherein when viewing the calendar on the computer, the one of the customer and potential customer selects a different location from their zip code, and the computer then displays at least a plurality of appointment options at the computer obtained from at least a portion of a calendar of a second company representative with unavailable times not selectable as appointment options, and then
if said one of the customer and potential customer selects an appointment time from the plurality of appointment options through the link as a selected appointment, and when selected, said computer immediately updating said calendar with the selected appointment displayed on the calendar of the second company representative and said appointment options are immediately updated to not include times within the selected appointment
in order to give the service providers greater flexibility in blocking and unblocking certain slots to provide services (as suggested in ¶¶ 57-59 of Rapp) while allowing potential customers to more conveniently get a general idea of when each of multiple service providers tends to work and providing updates and reminders to all appointment participants to increase the likelihood that an appointment will not be missed.
NOTE: “If” is conditional language. Method claims are defined by positively recited and actively performed steps. Steps corresponding to conditional language are not necessarily performed within the scope of the method claims. Nevertheless, in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has applied prior art with the assumption that the recited conditions in the claims are met.
[Claim 6] Stuart mentions that a retail store may be part of a larger chain or group, with each retail store being associated with a particular geographical service area and sales representatives (Stuart: p. 17: 20-24). Stuart does not explicitly disclose wherein all possible locations of the company are displayed as options for the one of the customer and potential customer to select therefrom.
Rapp allows for different cities to be selected from a drop-down menu, as seen in Figure 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
506
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rapp also correlates each of a merchant’s location and a customer’s location to a “Zip” (i.e., a zip code), as seen in ¶ 74 (Table 3), ¶ 75 (Table 4), and ¶ 77 (Table 6) of Rapp. Rapp discloses that a vendor’s appointment book may be maintained via a vendor-specific web site and URL using a central appointment repository (Rapp: ¶ 42). Rapp also shows available and unavailable time slots for multiple service providers, as seen in Figures 5 and 6:
PNG
media_image1.png
506
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rapp’s available time slots provide links to continue scheduling (Rapp: Fig. 6). Both customers and vendors may review scheduled appointments, including for each employee or service provider (Rapp: ¶¶ 31, 34). Calendar updates are made and reminders are sent in accordance with scheduled appointments (Rapp: ¶ 41; ¶ 53 – “Referring to FIG. 8, a contact data confirmation page in accordance with an example embodiment of the present invention is shown. The customer may review and update the information displayed on the page as appropriate 260. The customer may also specify when a reminder email message is to be sent. Finally, by selecting the "Set Appointment" button, the scheduling process may be completed. The central appointment repository is updated with the appointment information for the selected vendor, service provider, and timeslot.”).
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart wherein all possible locations of the company are displayed as options for the one of the customer and potential customer to select therefrom in order to increase the flexibility of scheduling with various different service providers who may not necessarily be located closest to where a customer lives.
[Claim 7] Stuart discloses wherein the link sent to the phone relates to a calendar of a company representative physically closest to a location of the one of a customer and a potential customer (p. 18: 11-22 – “For example, suppose that the retail store 12 is part of a chain of retail stores (i.e. retail stores 12a, 12b, 12c, each with their respective service areas), with each of the retail stores being associated with two sales representatives (i.e. sales representatives 26a, 26b with retail store 12a, sales representatives 26c, 26d with retail store 12b, and sales representatives 26e, 26f with retail store 12c). If the customer 10 is interested in a door installation at his or her home, and his or her home is located within the service area of retail store 12b, the sales representative assignment module 32 will assign either sales representative 26c or 26d to the lead. If, for example, sales representative 26c is familiar with windows installations and sales representative 26d is familiar with door installations, then the sales representative assignment module 32 will assign sales representative 26d to the lead.” Sales representatives assigned to a service area of a customer’s location are identified to service the customer.). This implies that the location of the one of the customer and potential customer is known by the computer when sending the email with a link with invitation information.
Stuart also obtains an address of a potential customer (p. 10: 10-15 – “In a further aspect, in response to receipt of data comprising information comprising a type of home installation job and an address of a potential customer, the server is configured to access the database to assign a sales representative to the potential customer as a function of the type, the address and a record of geographical regions assigned to a plurality of sales representatives.”).
While Stuart does not explicitly disclose that the address includes a zip code, Boyd explains that a user in search of a vendor and/or meeting may enter the user’s location in the form of at least a zip code (Boyd: ¶¶ 84, 87). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart such that the address includes a zip code so that service providers may be able to more accurately pinpoint the location of their customers and/or where the customer-requested services are to be performed. (The link being sent via text has been addressed specifically by the Stuart-Boyd combination, as explained in the rejection of the independent claim above. The same rationale extends to the dependent claims.)
[Claim 8] Stuart discloses wherein the calendar and the location are known within a customer relationship management system on the computer (p. 18: 11-22 – “For example, suppose that the retail store 12 is part of a chain of retail stores (i.e. retail stores 12a, 12b, 12c, each with their respective service areas), with each of the retail stores being associated with two sales representatives (i.e. sales representatives 26a, 26b with retail store 12a, sales representatives 26c, 26d with retail store 12b, and sales representatives 26e, 26f with retail store 12c). If the customer 10 is interested in a door installation at his or her home, and his or her home is located within the service area of retail store 12b, the sales representative assignment module 32 will assign either sales representative 26c or 26d to the lead. If, for example, sales representative 26c is familiar with windows installations and sales representative 26d is familiar with door installations, then the sales representative assignment module 32 will assign sales representative 26d to the lead.” Sales representatives assigned to a service area of a customer’s location are identified to service the customer.).
Stuart also obtains an address of a potential customer (p. 10: 10-15 – “In a further aspect, in response to receipt of data comprising information comprising a type of home installation job and an address of a potential customer, the server is configured to access the database to assign a sales representative to the potential customer as a function of the type, the address and a record of geographical regions assigned to a plurality of sales representatives.”).
While Stuart does not explicitly disclose that the address includes a zip code, Boyd explains that a user in search of a vendor and/or meeting may enter the user’s location in the form of at least a zip code (Boyd: ¶¶ 84, 87). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart such that the address includes a zip code so that service providers may be able to more accurately pinpoint the location of their customers and/or where the customer-requested services are to be performed. (The link being sent via text has been addressed specifically by the Stuart-Boyd combination, as explained in the rejection of the independent claim above. The same rationale extends to the dependent claims.)
[Claim 9] Stuart discloses wherein the computer is remote from both the one of the customer and potential customer and the first and second company representatives (p. 15: 3-10 – “Each of the participants involved in the lifecycle of the lead is preferably equipped with a remote, network communication-enabled device 28. The device 28 may be portable or stationary and are configured to communicate with the server 20 through a network connection, which may be the same as the network (e.g. the Internet) or some other suitable network. In the case where the device 28 is portable and intended to be carried by the participant from place to place, the device 28 is preferably capable of wireless network communications with the server 20 (e.g. using WiFi, cellular, and/or satellite communications).”; p. 15: 25 – p. 16: 10 – “The system architecture and participants of the preferred embodiment are also illustrated in Fig. 1. Management application 18 hosts a number of portals 98, 100, 102, 104 for certain of the participants in the job. The participants include a sales representative 26, a project coordinator 64, a re-measure contractor 66 and an installer 82, order personnel 78, vendor servers 44 and an inspector 88. At least the sales representative, the project coordinator, the re-measure contractor and the installer each have a device used to access their respective portals. Referring to Fig. 5 the management application 18 also connects as needed to a calendar application 99 (which may be proprietary or a third-party application such as Google Calendar) to support the scheduling functions of the job management system of the invention. The sales representative 26, re-measure contractor 66 and installer devices 82 each connects to the calendar application 99 to upload their availability for job scheduling.”; p. 13: 17 – p. 14: 6 – “Referring to Fig. 1 , in accordance with one embodiment of the invention, a customer 10 expresses an interest in an installation job. The job may include one or more of a door installation, a window installation, or a roofing installation. It is understood that the job may encompass the installation of other products as well. The customer 10 may express interest in the job in a number of ways. For example, the customer 10 may attend at a retail store 12 and express interest to an employee of the retail store 12. Alternatively, the customer 10 may access a website maintained by the retail store 12. Still alternatively, the customer 10 may initiate a phone call with the retail store 12. Regardless of the manner in which the customer 10 expresses interest in the job, certain initial lead information 14 regarding the job is recorded. The initial lead information 14 preferably includes at least the following: the name of the customer 10, contact information for the customer 10, the nature of the job, the location at which the job will be conducted and if applicable the particular store that generated the lead. In one embodiment, the initial lead information 14 is communicated to a third-party server 16, which may be maintained by the retail store 12.”).
[Claim 10] Stuart facilitates repeated scheduling of appointments with each of multiple participants (p. 15: 25 – p. 16: 10 – “The system architecture and participants of the preferred embodiment are also illustrated in Fig. 1. Management application 18 hosts a number of portals 98, 100, 102, 104 for certain of the participants in the job. The participants include a sales representative 26, a project coordinator 64, a re-measure contractor 66 and an installer 82, order personnel 78, vendor servers 44 and an inspector 88. At least the sales representative, the project coordinator, the re-measure contractor and the installer each have a device used to access their respective portals. Referring to Fig. 5 the management application 18 also connects as needed to a calendar application 99 (which may be proprietary or a third-party application such as Google Calendar) to support the scheduling functions of the job management system of the invention. The sales representative 26, re-measure contractor 66 and installer devices 82 each connects to the calendar application 99 to upload their availability for job scheduling.”). As seen throughout Stuart, the scheduling process is substantially repeated for a meeting with the customer and each of the respective representatives of the company.
Stuart also updates everyone’s schedules when a meeting is accepted by all participants and sends a confirmation email to the customer (p. 23: 24 – p. 24: 6 – “Once the customer 10 has selected one of the possible times, the sales representative scheduling module 34 updates the schedule information 106 for the sales representative 26 to reflect the new appointment. The information associated with the lead (e.g. the name of the customer 10, the location of where the job will be conducted, the nature of the job requested, etc.) is also part of the schedule information 106. Thereafter, the sales representative 26 will be able to view the new appointment (and his or her other already-scheduled appointments) through the sales representative portal 98. The sales representative scheduling module 34 preferably also sends a confirmation email to the customer 10 confirming the appointment.”).
Stuart does not explicitly disclose sending notice via one of text and email to the second company representative of new appointment. However, Stuart does disclose that a confirmation email may be sent to the customer (as discussed above). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart to perform the step of sending notice via one of text and email to the second company representative of new appointment in order to help ensure that each of the multiple business participants is more conveniently and clearly made aware of each respective pending meeting at which their attendance is expected.
[Claim 11] Stuart facilitates repeated scheduling of appointments with each of multiple participants (p. 15: 25 – p. 16: 10 – “The system architecture and participants of the preferred embodiment are also illustrated in Fig. 1. Management application 18 hosts a number of portals 98, 100, 102, 104 for certain of the participants in the job. The participants include a sales representative 26, a project coordinator 64, a re-measure contractor 66 and an installer 82, order personnel 78, vendor servers 44 and an inspector 88. At least the sales representative, the project coordinator, the re-measure contractor and the installer each have a device used to access their respective portals. Referring to Fig. 5 the management application 18 also connects as needed to a calendar application 99 (which may be proprietary or a third-party application such as Google Calendar) to support the scheduling functions of the job management system of the invention. The sales representative 26, re-measure contractor 66 and installer devices 82 each connects to the calendar application 99 to upload their availability for job scheduling.”). As seen throughout Stuart, the scheduling process is substantially repeated for a meeting with the customer and each of the respective representatives of the company.
Stuart does not explicitly disclose wherein the calendar of the second company representative is displayed to the one of the customer and potential customer with prior commitments having at least in indication related to unavailability as an available appointment.
Rapp allows for different cities to be selected from a drop-down menu, as seen in Figure 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
506
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rapp also correlates each of a merchant’s location and a customer’s location to a “Zip” (i.e., a zip code), as seen in ¶ 74 (Table 3), ¶ 75 (Table 4), and ¶ 77 (Table 6) of Rapp. Rapp discloses that a vendor’s appointment book may be maintained via a vendor-specific web site and URL using a central appointment repository (Rapp: ¶ 42). Rapp also shows available and unavailable time slots for multiple service providers, as seen in Figures 5 and 6:
PNG
media_image1.png
506
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rapp’s available time slots provide links to continue scheduling (Rapp: Fig. 6). Both customers and vendors may review scheduled appointments, including for each employee or service provider (Rapp: ¶¶ 31, 34). Calendar updates are made and reminders are sent in accordance with scheduled appointments (Rapp: ¶ 41; ¶ 53 – “Referring to FIG. 8, a contact data confirmation page in accordance with an example embodiment of the present invention is shown. The customer may review and update the information displayed on the page as appropriate 260. The customer may also specify when a reminder email message is to be sent. Finally, by selecting the "Set Appointment" button, the scheduling process may be completed. The central appointment repository is updated with the appointment information for the selected vendor, service provider, and timeslot.”).
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart wherein the calendar of the second company representative is displayed to the one of the customer and potential customer with prior commitments having at least in indication related to unavailability as an available appointment in order to give the service providers greater flexibility in blocking and unblocking certain slots to provide services (as suggested in ¶¶ 57-59 of Rapp) while allowing potential customers to more conveniently get a general idea of when each of multiple service providers tends to work and providing updates and reminders to all appointment participants to increase the likelihood that an appointment will not be missed.
[Claim 12] Stuart does not explicitly disclose wherein prior commitments appear as blocks of unavailable time on the calendar.
Rapp allows for different cities to be selected from a drop-down menu, as seen in Figure 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
506
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Rapp also correlates each of a merchant’s location and a customer’s location to a “Zip” (i.e., a zip code), as seen in ¶ 74 (Table 3), ¶ 75 (Table 4), and ¶ 77 (Table 6) of Rapp. Rapp discloses that a vendor’s appointment book may be maintained via a vendor-specific web site and URL using a central appointment repository (Rapp: ¶ 42). Rapp also shows available and unavailable time slots for multiple service providers, as seen in Figures 5 and 6:
PNG
media_image1.png
506
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Rapp’s available time slots provide links to continue scheduling (Rapp: Fig. 6). Both customers and vendors may review scheduled appointments, including for each employee or service provider (Rapp: ¶¶ 31, 34). Calendar updates are made and reminders are sent in accordance with scheduled appointments (Rapp: ¶ 41; ¶ 53 – “Referring to FIG. 8, a contact data confirmation page in accordance with an example embodiment of the present invention is shown. The customer may review and update the information displayed on the page as appropriate 260. The customer may also specify when a reminder email message is to be sent. Finally, by selecting the "Set Appointment" button, the scheduling process may be completed. The central appointment repository is updated with the appointment information for the selected vendor, service provider, and timeslot.”).
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart wherein prior commitments appear as blocks of unavailable time on the calendar in order to give the service providers greater flexibility in blocking and unblocking certain slots to provide services (as suggested in ¶¶ 57-59 of Rapp) while allowing potential customers to more conveniently get a general idea of when each of multiple service providers tends to work and providing updates and reminders to all appointment participants to increase the likelihood that an appointment will not be missed.
[Claim 13] Stuart does not explicitly disclose wherein the one of the customer and potential customer selects one of (a) an audio call and (b) a video conference call. However, Meushar discloses that scheduled events may include virtual meetings including phone calls, conference calls, and video calls (Meushar: ¶¶ 19, 39). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Stuart wherein the one of the customer and potential customer selects one of (a) an audio call and (b) a video conference call in order to provide inviters (including service providers) and customers/potential customers with the convenience of being able to set up meetings using a communication medium that best suits all invited parties.
Conclusion
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 SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A
Prosecution Insights