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
Status of Claims
This First Office action is in reply to the application filed on 03 February 2025.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 03 February 2025 has been considered by the Examiner. A signed copy is enclosed with this Office Action.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicants are advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims as a whole recite certain grouping of an abstract idea and are analyzed in the following step process:
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are each focused to a statutory category of invention, namely “device/system” sets.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-9 recite limitations that set forth the abstract ideas, namely, the claims as a whole recite the claimed invention as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims encompass the mental process or economic concept of scheduling, calculating travel times, and giving reminders. More specifically, the core operations involve: comparing a "reminder time" against a calculated "preparation time" (i.e., human travel time and specified buffer time) and selecting alternative destinations if the time constraints are violated. These are fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (like calculating when you need to leave for an appointment) that humans have historically performed without a computer in the following manner:
““a communication device that communicates with the information processing device on the receiving side via the server;
an input device to which a reminder time indicating a time from a start date and time for the event to a reminder sending date and time earlier than the start date and time for the event is to be input;
and a controller that calculates, at the reminder sending date and time or a predetermined time before the reminder sending date and time, a preparation time which is either a travel time taken to move from a location of the information processing device on the receiving side to the event destination or a time obtained by adding a specified time to the travel time, wherein when the preparation time is equal to or shorter than the reminder time, the controller allows the communication device to send the notification information to the information processing device on the receiving side at the reminder sending date and time, and wherein when the preparation time is longer than the reminder time, the controller selects, based on respective locations of the event destinations and the location of the information processing device on the receiving side, an alternative one of the event destinations where the preparation time is equal to or shorter than the reminder time, and allows the communication device to send notification information indicating a change to the alternative event destination to the information processing device on the receiving side”
As detailed in the MPEP 2106 and commensurate to the two-part subject matter eligibility framework decision in the Federal court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., (Alice), 2019 revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) and the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update), and the new “July 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including on Artificial Intelligence”, the 2019 PEG explains that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter. The 35 U.S.C. 101 Step 2A, Prong One analysis focuses on whether a claim recites a judicial exception by evaluating if it falls into one of three specific groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity. Based on the provided steps above, the analysis for Step 2A Prong One is as follows for representative independent Claim 1:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. The claim recites mathematical relationships, specifically the comparison of the preparation time (Travel Time + Specified Time) to a "reminder time" to determine if a condition is met.
Certain methods of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claimed invention automates the act of making a decision (whether to leave on time or find an alternative event destination), which is a common human reasoning and scheduling task.
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claimed invention automates the act of making a decision (whether to leave on time or find an alternative event destination), which is a common human reasoning and scheduling task.
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C. Hence, the claims are ineligible under Step 2A Prong one. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception.
Prong Two: Claims 1-9: With regard to this step of the analysis (as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent Claim 1 recites additional elements directed to “processing device; server over a network; communication device; input device; controller” (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 23-34). Therefore, the claims contain computer components that are cited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) (h).
Step 2B: As explained in MPEP § 2106.05, Claims 1-9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea nor recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements of “processing device; server over a network; communication device; input device; controller”, etc. are generically-recited computer-related elements that amount to a mere instruction to “apply it” (the abstract idea) on the computer-related elements (see MPEP § 2106.05 (f) – Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). These additional elements in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and are merely limiting the field of use of the judicial exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (h) – Field of Use and Technological Environment). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the function of a computer or improves any other technology. Furthermore, the dependent claims are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generally-recited computer components, and furthermore do not amount to an improvement to a computer or any other technology, and thus are ineligible.
The Examiner interprets that the steps of the claimed invention both individually and as an ordered combination result in Mere Instructions to Apply a Judicial Exception (see MPEP §2106.05 (f)). These claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism used for accomplishing the result. Here, the claims utilize a computer or other machinery (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 23-34) regarding using existing computer processors as well as program products comprising machine-readable media for carrying or having machine-executable instructions or data structures stored. “information notification system Sy” in its ordinary capacity for performing tasks (e.g., to receive, analyze, transmit and display data) and/or use computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice and certain methods of organization human activities) and does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Software implementations are accomplished with standard programming techniques with logic to perform connection steps, processing steps, comparison steps and decisions steps. These claims are directed to being a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer (see Alice Corp. Pty, Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 1357, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014)); Versata Dev. Group, Inc., v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 D.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and require the use of software such as via a server to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. Based on all these, Examiner finds that when viewed either individually or in combination, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) that raise to the high standards of eligibility to transform the abstract idea(s) into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea(s) such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea exception) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The claims are narrative in form. The claims must be in one sentence form only (see MPEP 2173.05(m) “Prolix”). Examiners should reject claims as prolix only when they contain such long recitations or unimportant details that the scope of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite thereby. The claim limitation sentences are lengthy and only separated by commas instead of semi-colons. Claims 1-9 are rejected as prolix when they contain long recitations that the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iyer (US 2012/0164997).
With regard to Claims 1, 9, Iyer teaches an information processing device/system on a sending side that sends, for each of a plurality of event destinations, notification information notifying of an event to be held at the event destination via a server on a network to a different information processing device on a receiving side, the information processing device on the sending side (Using the interfaces provided by cloud server 110, a user on cloud server 110 could log into the server from any device that supports a web browser, such as Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, Google Chrome, etc. Using a web application interface, a user can initiate, manage events/calendars, update their profile, create and send event/meeting reminders even for large groups, compiled either from their contact address book or by manually entering or importing from a file, of participant phone numbers, and the like. The disclosed embodiment will further allow an account holder on the system to, from a single web page, initiate event related group messages destined for email addresses, SMS message and message for those with either the web application or the mobile device applications installed on their respective devices) (see at least paragraphs 38-40) comprising:
a communication device that communicates with the information processing device on the receiving side via the server (The event information can come from a variety of sources including, for example, a smart phone 130 or tablet 140 via a mobile device application, a web browser via the web application 150, and the like. In this regard, it is common for the event information to be received from an organizer computing device associated with a user organizing the event or meeting) (see at least paragraphs 38-40);
an input device to which a reminder time (cloud server 110 would communicate with a computing device associated with the participant(s), for example, mobile phone 120, via SMS, to remind participant(s)) indicating a time from a start date and time for the event (communication is key when organizing and scheduling an event, particularly when finding a suitable time for an event such as meeting, conference, trip, etc. For example, event scheduling should take into account what impact particular dates of the event could have on the success of the event) to a reminder sending date and time earlier than the start date and time for the event is to be input (When scheduling an event, it is preferred that the organizing user, or organizer, have an account stored in a database 112 on cloud server 110. If this is not the case, for example, if the organizer is a first-time user, the organizer may be provided with an option to create an account. Whenever participant(s) involved in a scheduled meeting/event do not yet have an account on cloud server 110, cloud server 110 would communicate with a computing device associated with the participant(s), for example, mobile phone 120, via SMS, to remind participant(s) of an upcoming event/meeting, with SMS reminders going out as per organizer's preference (for example, a day before the event/meeting followed by a multiple, variable minutes reminders prior to scheduled event), with an option for the recipient to cancel further reminders. The cloud server 110 can also be configured to offer an opportunity to anyone who does not want to receive SMS notifications, with functionality similar to that of a do-not-call list) (see at least paragraphs 11, 23, 38-40);
and a controller that calculates, at the reminder sending date and time or a predetermined time before the reminder sending date and time, a preparation time which is either a travel time taken to move from a location of the information processing device on the receiving side to the event destination or a time obtained by adding a specified time to the travel time (the applications can dynamically change how far ahead an alert needs to occur in order for the attendee to make the meeting on time. For example, if the invitee is in Acton, Mass., and if the meeting is in Boston Mass. at 11:00 AM, then based on certain historical and current travel times, the system may alert the user of impending event that takes into account the necessary travel time. In this case as an example, if the best estimated travel time from Acton, Mass. to Boston Mass. is 45 minutes, then the system will alert the user of an 11:00 AM EST meeting at 10:15 AM) (see at least paragraphs 30-32),
wherein when the preparation time is equal to or shorter than the reminder time, the controller allows the communication device to send the notification information to the information processing device on the receiving side at the reminder sending date and time, and wherein when the preparation time is longer than the reminder time (the applications can dynamically change how far ahead an alert needs to occur in order for the attendee to make the meeting on time. For example, if the invitee is in Acton, Mass., and if the meeting is in Boston Mass. at 11:00 AM, then based on certain historical and current travel times, the system may alert the user of impending event that takes into account the necessary travel time. In this case as an example, if the best estimated travel time from Acton, Mass. to Boston Mass. is 45 minutes, then the system will alert the user of an 11:00 AM EST meeting at 10:15 AM) (see at least paragraphs 30-33),
the controller selects, based on respective locations of the event destinations and the location of the information processing device on the receiving side, an alternative one of the event destinations where the preparation time is equal to or shorter than the reminder time (the mobile device applications will also provide various usability features such as labeling, tagging, and classifying of events and notifications such that the user can get a single unified view of one or more similar events. For example, if an event involves initiating a call to a participant, and if so desired, the device application can cause a mobile phone to automatically initiate a call to the participant phone number, there by alleviating the manual dialing of number to start the call/conference. For example, if the reminder is about calling mom on Sunday morning at 11:00 AM, then if such an option is chosen, the device will automatically initiate a call, at users preferred telephone number, to mom, for example, at 10:59 AM. The user of the device will also have the ability to record an audio and/or video message and send it to one or more groups) (see at least paragraphs 30-33),
and allows the communication device to send notification information indicating a change to the alternative event destination to the information processing device on the receiving side (The mobile device application is further capable of receiving event notifications asynchronously. Optionally, the application can display details of a new event or changes to an existing event by taking partial or full control of the screen, as well as juxtaposition of event details over what the user is currently seeing on their screen. When a new event notification is displayed to the user, user is allowed to perform various actions, including but not limited to, snooze, ignore, remind again, cancel, etc.) (see at least paragraphs 30-33).
With regard to Claim 2, Iyer teaches wherein when the information processing device on the receiving side comprises a plurality of information processing devices, the controller calculates the preparation time for each of the plurality of information processing devices on the receiving side, and when the preparation time for any one of the plurality of information processing devices on the receiving side is longer than the reminder time, the controller selects an alternative event destination where the preparation times for all the plurality of information processing devices on the receiving side are equal to or shorter than the reminder time, and allows the communication device to send to the information processing devices on the receiving side notification information indicating a change to the alternative event destination (see at least paragraphs 9-11, 23, 33-40).
With regard to Claim 3, Iyer teaches further comprising a display device, wherein when the preparation time of any one of the plurality of information processing devices on the receiving side is longer than the reminder time, the controller allows the display device to display a message requesting to give approval of a change to an alternative event destination, and when the approval is input to the input device, the controller selects an alternative event destination where the preparation times for the plurality of information processing devices on the receiving side are equal to or shorter than the reminder time (see at least paragraphs 11, 23, 38-42).
With regard to Claim 4, Iyer teaches wherein the controller selects, based on a capacity of the event destination, the alternative event destination capable of accommodating all users of the information processing devices on the receiving side (see at least paragraphs 38-43).
With regard to Claim 5, Iyer teaches wherein when there is no alternative event destination capable of accommodating all the users of the information processing devices on the receiving side, the controller selects alternative individual event destinations for individual information processing devices on the receiving side and allows the communication device to send notification information indicating a change to the alternative individual event destination to each of the information processing devices on the receiving side (see at least paragraphs 9-11, 23, 38-42).
With regard to Claim 6, Iyer teaches wherein when selecting the alternative individual event destinations for the individual information processing devices on the receiving side, the controller sets an online meeting for the plurality of information processing devices on the receiving side and allows the communication device to send the notification information containing information for participation in the online meeting to each of the information processing devices on the receiving side (see at least paragraphs 9-11, 23, 38-42).
With regard to Claim 7, Iyer teaches wherein when, in selecting the alternative individual event destinations for the individual information processing devices on the receiving side, an alternative common event destination is further selectable for any of combinations of members of a group consisting of the plurality of information processing devices on the receiving side based on the capacity of the alternative event destination, the controller selects the alternative common event destination for the combination of members of the group consisting of the information processing devices on the receiving side (see at least paragraphs 9-11, 23, 38-42).
With regard to Claim 8, Iyer teaches wherein in selecting the alternative individual event destinations for the individual information processing devices on the receiving side, the controller selects the alternative event destinations from among the event destinations located within a predetermined short distance from the original event destination (see at least paragraphs 9-11, 23, 38-42).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Chen et al. (US 9247522)
Kon et al. (US 2021/0049558)
Mischel et al. (US 12474889)
Iyer et al. (WO 2012088368 A1)
Cranshaw, Justin, et al. "Calendar. help: Designing a workflow-based scheduling agent with humans in the loop." Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2017.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS L MANSFIELD whose telephone number is (571)270-1904. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thurs, alt. Fri. (9-6).
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
THOMAS L. MANSFIELD
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/THOMAS L MANSFIELD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights