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 05 February 2025, 05 June 2025.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 05 February 2025 has been considered by the Examiner. A signed copy is enclosed with this Office Action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies filed 05 February 2025 are acknowledged.
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 1-14 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: Claim 13 is focused to a statutory category of invention, namely an “apparatus” set. However “method” Claims 1-12 refer to a “user interface of a calendar application” which implies software per se, and software is not statutory unless properly supported by additional elements of computer architecture components. Claim 14 does not recite the computer-readable recording medium is non-transitory. Transitory media (volatile media) is not statutory. Despite this failure to pass Step 1, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps of the analysis.
Step 2A: Prong One: Claims 1-14 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. Evaluating representative Claim 1 as a whole, the core of the invention appears to be the manipulation of information and human-computer interactions. Providing, displaying, and updating selectable elements on a display screen without a specific technological improvement to a computer's functionality (such as a specific database architecture or specialized display hardware) is universally treated as reciting an abstract idea. It represents a concept for managing calendar data rather than a specific physical or technological solution. The claims recite steps for:
“providing, on a category selection window of a user interface of a calendar application, selectable item buttons corresponding to each of at least two categories of a schedule simultaneously, wherein the at least two categories are associated with each other, and the provided item buttons are set differently for each user;
receiving a selection of at least one item button among item buttons belonging to one of the at least two categories on the category selection window;
and in response to the selection of the at least one item button, modifying and presenting item buttons belonging to the other one of the at least two categories on the category selection window, wherein the number of the modified item buttons is smaller than the number of the item buttons before modification”
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: mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity. Based on the provided steps above, the analysis for Step 2A Prong One is as follows:
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 claim governs interactions with a calendar (tracking and categorizing schedules) and dynamic data presentation rules.
Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The step of "receiving a selection" and "modifying and presenting" categories mirrors activities that can be performed entirely in the human mind using a pencil and paper (e.g., viewing a list of related events and crossing some off based on an initial choice).
See MPEP § 2106.04(a) III C. Evaluating the claim as a whole, the core of the invention is directed to the manipulation of information and human-computer interactions. Providing, displaying, and updating selectable elements on a display screen without a specific technological improvement to the computer's functionality (such as a specific database architecture or specialized display hardware) is universally treated as reciting an abstract idea. It represents an intellectual concept for managing calendar data rather than a specific physical or technological solution. 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 1-14: 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 13 recites additional elements directed to “a processor; memory including computer-executable instructions” (e.g., see Applicants’ published Specification ¶’s 50-54). Therefore, the claim contains 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. However “method” Claims 1-12 refer to a “user interface of a calendar application” which implies software per se, and software is not statutory unless properly supported by additional elements of computer architecture components. Claim 14 does not recite the computer-readable recording medium is non-transitory. Transitory media (volatile media) is not statutory. Despite this failure to pass Prong Two, the Examiner proceeds to the next steps of the analysis. 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 1-14 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 “a processor; memory including computer-executable instructions”, 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. However “method” Claims 1-12 refer to a “user interface of a calendar application” which implies software per se, and software is not statutory unless properly supported by additional elements of computer architecture components. Claim 14 does not recite the computer-readable recording medium is non-transitory. Transitory media (volatile media) is not statutory. Despite this failure to pass Step 2B, the Examiner with the analysis. 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 50-54) 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. “calendar management server 20” 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 1-14 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 § 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jacobson (US 2018/0005195).
With regard to Claims 1, 10, 13, 14, Jacobson teaches a method/apparatus of inputting schedules including multiple categories; the apparatus (a room scheduling system is provided for scheduling electronic devices of a building automation system. The system comprises a database comprising a plurality of space nodes identifying spaces located within a building and associated with one or more electronic devices installed within respective spaces in the building. The system further comprises a processor in communication with the one or more electronic devices comprising a memory encoding one or more processor-executable instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause acts to be performed comprising: classifying the space nodes by room categories; defining room states each comprising at least one control command for one or more electronic devices in a space; defining day patterns by assigning at least one room state to at least one room category over a course of a day; and assigning the day patterns to calendar days on a calendar) (see at least paragraphs 12-20), the apparatus/ computer-readable recording medium storing computer-executable instructions, wherein the computer-executable instructions, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: (see at least paragraphs 10-20; FIG.’s 4-21):
providing, on a category selection window of a user interface of a calendar application (Categories), selectable item buttons/at least one button for a specific category of a schedule (list of selectable space nodes; Icon Button; Save Button) corresponding to each of at least two categories of a schedule simultaneously, wherein the at least two categories are associated with each other, and the provided item buttons are set differently for each user (a room scheduling system is provided for scheduling electronic devices of a building automation system. The system comprises a database comprising a plurality of space nodes identifying spaces located within a building and associated with one or more electronic devices installed within respective spaces in the building. The system further comprises a processor in communication with the one or more electronic devices comprising a memory encoding one or more processor-executable instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause acts to be performed comprising: classifying the space nodes by room categories; defining room states each comprising at least one control command for one or more electronic devices in a space; defining day patterns by assigning at least one room state to at least one room category over a course of a day; and assigning the day patterns to calendar days on a calendar) (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195; FIG.’s 4-21);
receiving a selection of at least one item button among item buttons belonging to one of the at least two categories on the category selection window (a room scheduling system is provided for scheduling electronic devices of a building automation system. The system comprises a database comprising a plurality of space nodes identifying spaces located within a building and associated with one or more electronic devices installed within respective spaces in the building. The system further comprises a processor in communication with the one or more electronic devices comprising a memory encoding one or more processor-executable instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause acts to be performed comprising: classifying the space nodes by room categories; defining room states each comprising at least one control command for one or more electronic devices in a space; defining day patterns by assigning at least one room state to at least one room category over a course of a day; and assigning the day patterns to calendar days on a calendar) (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195; FIG.’s 4-21);
in response to the selection of the at least one item button, modifying and presenting/on an input panel of the user interface/ at least one/item buttons belonging to the other one of the at least two categories on the category selection window, wherein the number of the modified item buttons is smaller than the number of the item buttons before modification (To add a room state, the user may press the add icon button 515 configured for opening a room state configuration window 520. The room state configuration window 520 may comprise a room states drop-down menu 521 from which a user may select a room state. For example, the room states for lighting may comprise a “Vacancy” room state 522a, an “Occupancy” room state 522b, a “Manual” room state 522c, and a “Lockout” room state 522d. Fewer, other, or additional lighting room states may also be provided. While these room sates are predefined by the building automation application 112, each room state may have settings associate with it that can be used by the user for modification of the room state as discussed below. When the user finishes selecting desired modifications, the user may press the “Save” button 525 to save the changes. The new room state is then added to the “Room States” window 501.) (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21).
With regard to Claim 2, Jacobson teaches wherein the at least two categories have a relationship as an upper category and a lower category (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21).
With regard to Claim 3, Jacobson teaches: wherein the user interface includes an input panel configured to input a time and a category for a schedule and displaying the selected at least one item button on the input panel in response to receiving a selection of at least one item button among item buttons belonging to one of the at least two categories on the category selection window (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21).
With regard to Claim 4, Jacobson teaches: presenting at least some of the modified and presented item buttons belonging to the other one of the at least two categories on the input panel (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21).
With regard to Claim 5, Jacobson teaches wherein the input panel includes a first item display section and a second item display section, wherein the selected at least one item button is presented in the first item display section of the input panel, and wherein at least some of the modified and presented item buttons belonging to the other one of the at least two categories are presented in the second item display section of the input panel (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21).
With regard to Claim 6, Jacobson teaches wherein the modifying and presenting item buttons belonging to the other one of the at least two categories on the category selection window in response to the selection of the at least one item button comprises: presenting the modified and presented item buttons by ranking them based on usage frequency (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21).
With regard to Claim 7, Jacobson teaches: the categories of the schedule include a first category, a second category, a third category, and a fourth category in order from upper to lower (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21); the one of the at least two categories on the category selection window is the third category, and the other of the at least two categories is the fourth category (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21) ; and by selecting the selected at least one item button, the first category and the second category are automatically determined (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21).
With regard to Claim 8, Jacobson teaches wherein before receiving the selection of an item button, the selectable item buttons corresponding to each of the at least two categories of the schedule presented on the category selection window include either item buttons recently used by the user or all item buttons of a specific category (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21).
With regard to Claim 9, Jacobson teaches: receiving a selection of at least one of the modified and presented item buttons (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21);
receiving a selection of a registration button for registering the schedule (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21);
and in response to the selection of the registration button, generating a schedule item in at least one of a timeline or a schedule display table of the user interface (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21).
With regard to Claim 11, Jacobson teaches wherein the category associated with the category to which the selected at least one item button belongs is an upper category or a lower category of the category to which the selected at least one item button belongs (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21).
With regard to Claim 12, Jacobson teaches wherein the categories of the schedule include a first category, a second category, a third category, and a fourth category in order from upper to lower (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21);
wherein the category to which the selected at least one item button belongs is the third category (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21);
wherein the category associated with the category to which the selected at least one item button belongs is the fourth category (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21);
wherein by selecting the selected at least one item button, the first category and the second category are automatically determined (see at least paragraphs 10-20, 46-195, 246; FIG.’s 4-21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Norton et al. (US 8346589)
Murthy (WO 2020/152156 A1)
Byers et al. (US 2010/0164736)
Saringer, Jim. "CaSe-Categorical Scheduler." Diss. Freie Universität Berlin (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