DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-18, 21, 22 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2025; was filed with this application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status
This action is a Non-Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 03/05/2025.
Claim 13 has been amended
Claims 19 and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-18, 21, 22 remain pending in this application.
Foreign Priority
The Examiner/office acknowledges that the applicant claims foreign priority to the date 12/28/2022. Additionally, the Examiner wants to make the Applicant aware that Applicant’s supplied foreign priority documents are Non-English versions.
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 1-18 are directed towards a method, claim 21 is electronic device directed towards a system, and claim 22 is directed towards a computer-readable storage medium, all of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
With respect to claims 1-18, 21, 22, the independent claims (claims 1, 21, and 22) are directed to managing of user’s schedules, In independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1, A schedule check-in method, comprising:
acquiring schedule-related information input by a user, the schedule-related information comprising check-in information, a check-in time in the check-in information being related to a time corresponding to a first schedule to be created; and
creating the first schedule with a check-in function based on the schedule-related information.
these steps fall within and recite an abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which includes commercial interaction such as behaviors; managing personal behavior such as social activities and following rules or instructions (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interaction; managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, If the identified limitation(s) falls within any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, the analysis should proceed to Prong Two. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of ( at claim 21: electronic device, processor, memory); ( at claim 22: computer-readable storage medium, device). The claims recite the steps are performed by the ( at claim 21: electronic device, processor, memory); ( at claim 22: computer-readable storage medium, device).
The limitations of
in response to a schedule creation operation triggered by the user on a target client.
are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, the limitations are recited as being performed by ( at claim 21: electronic device, processor, memory); ( at claim 22: computer-readable storage medium, device). The ( at claim 21: electronic device, processor, memory); ( at claim 22: computer-readable storage medium, device) are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a),( at claim 21: electronic device, processor, memory); ( at claim 22: computer-readable storage medium, device) are used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The ( at claim 21: electronic device, processor, memory); ( at claim 22: computer-readable storage medium, device) are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements are (at claim 21: electronic device, processor, memory); ( at claim 22: computer-readable storage medium, device) The additional elements were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting.
However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of
in response to a schedule creation operation triggered by the user on a target client
are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to processing data and are well understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. 10 As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a (at claim 21: electronic device, processor, memory); ( at claim 22: computer-readable storage medium, device) to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-18 do not contain any new additional elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, 2-18 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claims 2-18 recites displaying and QR Codes which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claims 2-18 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claims 1, 21, and 22. Therefore claims 2-18 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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, 3, 4, 8-12, 15, 16, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication US 20150066342, Garzella.
Referring to Claim 1, Garzella teaches a schedule check-in method, comprising:
acquiring schedule-related information input by a user in response to a schedule creation operation triggered by the user on a target client(
Garzella teaches a user-triggered schedule creation operation on a client device, where the user inputs schedule-related information for a flight event. Garzella discloses that “a user may request to schedule a flight event using the client device 112. The request may be transmitted to the application server 102 over the network 110 where, upon receiving the request, the application server 102 may authenticate the user.” (Garzella at 0026). Garzella further discloses that, after validation, “a request to schedule a flight event may be received by the scheduling module 214. The scheduling module 214 can then schedule a block of time for the flight event in the flight event schedule 210 and can reserve a flight resource 209 for the flight event. The flight event schedule 210 may be an electronic calendar stored in the data store 204 that can be made available to users of the flight management system 200.” (Garzella at 0036). The scheduling UI allows entry of pilot, aircraft, instructor, from/to times, and pre-/post-flight minutes in a “New Booking” window shown in FIG. 3 (Garzella at 0045, 0055, Fig. 3).
Garzella teaches acquiring schedule-related information (flight event details, block of time, aircraft/instructor, pre/post-flight configuration) input by a user in response to a user-triggered schedule creation operation on a client device.),
the schedule-related information comprising check-in information (
Garzella teaches that the schedule-related information for a flight event includes check-in information stored in a master flight record. Garzella discloses that “when a flight event is completed and checked-in, additional information may be added to the master flight record. For example, a check-in time, ending hobbs meter time, total flying time, locations flown, actual flight plan (vs. planned flight plan), number of landings, oil and fuel used, day, night, actual instrument and other log book flight times, flight notes, other expenses for the flight, lesson details (if a lesson is conducted), etc.” (Garzella at 0023). Garzella teaches that upon dispatch “a master flight record 211 may be created for the flight event” (Garzella at 0038) and that the master record “may include, but is not limited to, a date for the flight event, a flight event start time, pilot information, flight resource information, flight plan, starting hobbs meter time(s), flight lesson (ground and/or air), flight notes, weather forecast, etc.” (Garzella at 0022). Garzella teaches the master flight record contains both schedule parameters (date, start time, resource, lesson) and the check-in information (check-in time, actual times, etc.), Therefore, Garzella teaches that the schedule-related information for the scheduled event comprises check-in information.),
a check-in time in the check-in information being related to a time corresponding to a first schedule to be created (
Garzella explicitly teaches storing both the scheduled time of a flight event and a check-in time for that event in the same master record. As noted above, Garzella discloses that “a master flight record may include… a date for the flight event, a flight event start time…” (Garzella at 0022) and that upon check-in “a check-in time… may be added to the master flight record.” (Garzella at 0023). FIG. 8 further illustrates “creating a first flight event and scheduling the block of time and a flight resource for the first flight event 805,” “creating a master flight record for the first flight event when the first flight event is checked-out 810,” and “receiving check-in data for the first flight event and updating the master flight record with the check-in data 815.” (Garzella at FIG. 8; Claim 1). Thus, in Garzella, the check-in time (stored in the check-in data) is inherently related to and stored alongside the scheduled time block (date, start time, end time) corresponding to the first scheduled flight event, satisfying the requirement that the check-in time in the check-in information is related to a time corresponding to a first schedule to be created.);
creating the first schedule with a check-in function based on the schedule-related information (
Garzella teaches creating a scheduled event (a first flight event) with an associated check-in function implemented by a master flight record and a dispatch/check-in flow. Garzella discloses a method including: “Creating a first flight event and scheduling the block of time and a flight resource for the first flight event 805,” “creating a master flight record for the first flight event when the first flight event is checked-out 810,” “receiving check-in data for the first flight event and updating the master flight record with the check-in data 815,” and then creating and checking-in additional related flight events (Garzella at FIG. 8; Claim 1). Garzella further explains that “a dispatch module 216 may be configured to check-out (dispatch) and check-in a scheduled flight event” (Garzella at 0037) and that “upon check-in… the master flight record 211 may be updated with information about the completed flight event.” (Garzella at 0038).
Garzella teaches when the user schedules the flight event via the client device, Garzella’s system creates a record in the electronic calendar (flight event schedule 210) and a corresponding master flight record configured with check-out/check-in behavior. The scheduling/dispatch modules and master record together constitute a “first schedule with a check-in function” created based on the user-supplied schedule-related information.).
Referring to Claim 3, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
if the check-in information comprises first configuration information and a current time is the check-in time, sending a check-in notification message to a participant in the first schedule (
Garzella teaches checking and sending participants schedule notification. “Upon scheduling the first flight event, a request may be received to reserve the flight resource for the block of time. A flight resource may be, but is not limited to: an instructor, a room (e.g., classroom), classroom materials, a workstation and/or a flight simulator. Once a flight event is scheduled, a notification may be provided to persons who may be participating in the flight event. For instance, where a flight event may be a charter flight, a notification may be sent to a pilot and any passengers that may be flying on the charter flight that the charter flight has been scheduled.” FIG. 6 shows “User selects Check-in 604,” “User provides flight event information 606,” and “Process check-in 612.” (Garzella at 0060; FIG. 6). “When a flight event is scheduled within a flight management system, the process of dispatching (checking-out) and checking in the flight event can entail multiple steps. For example, dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information.” (Garzella at 0026), Garzella also teaches event participants such as pilots and instructors.);
or if the check-in information does not comprise the first configuration information, sending a check-in notification message to a participant in the first schedule in response to a sending operation triggered by the user on the check-in information (
Garzella teaches user-triggered check-in operations for scheduled events and notifications. FIG. 6 shows “User selects Check-in 604,” “User provides flight event information 606,” and “Process check-in 612.” (Garzella at 0052; 0060, FIG. 6). “When a flight event is scheduled within a flight management system, the process of dispatching (checking-out) and checking in the flight event can entail multiple steps. For example, dispatching a flight lesson can include specifying one or more pilots, an instructor, an aircraft, aircraft details (service hours, maintenance information, etc.), flight rules, pre-flight information as well as additional information.” (Garzella at 0026), Garzella also teaches event participants such as pilots and instructors. .
Referring to Claim 4, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein sending the check-in notification message to the participant in the first schedule in response to the sending operation triggered by the user on the check-in information comprises:
displaying a first page in response to a trigger operation of the user on the check-in information, the first page comprising a check-in link and/or a check-in QR code; and sending the check-in notification message to the participant in the first schedule in response to a selection operation triggered by the user on the first page, the check-in notification message comprising a selected check-in manner (
Garzella teaches displaying a check-in page in response to user selection of the check-in function. FIG. 6 shows “User selects Check-in 604” and then “User provides flight event information 606.” Garzella thus teaches display of a page or interface in response to a trigger operation on check-in information. (Garzella at 0052; FIG. 6)
Garzella teaches event pages and selectable schedule options presented in response to user interaction with schedules, including detailed New Booking screens and schedule-action prompts “A dispatch module 216 may be configured to check-out (dispatch) and check-in a scheduled flight event. In one example, a flight event may be dispatched or checked-out using the flight management system 200. A user may locate the scheduled flight event within a flight event schedule 210 and select an option to check-out the flight event. The flight management system 200 may request information associated with the flight event (e.g., pilot information, instructor information, aircraft information, etc.) and then provide the user with a check-out checklist. The check-out checklist may be a list where each item may include a passed or failed designation. For example, upon check-out, items associated with an aircraft that will be used during the flight event may be compared to a set of criteria.” (Garzella at 0037; FIG. 2, 3) (FIGS. 17A–18). See paragraphs, – of Jung.).
Referring to Claim 8, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a second notification message, the second notification message being configured to prompt the user to view check-in data (
Garzella teaches a post-event review flow in which the user is prompted to provide and review post-flight information, in which the Examiner is interpreting as viewing check-in data. FIG. 7 shows “User selects Post Lesson Review 704,” “User provides grading information 706,” and “Finalize Post Lesson Review 714.” (Garzella at Fig. 7) “FIG. 7 is a flow diagram illustrating an example method for performing a post lesson review for a flight lesson. Beginning in block 704, a user may access a flight management system and select a flight lesson for which the user would like to perform a post lesson review. As in block 706, a graphical user interface may be provided that allows the user to provide grading information for the flight lesson. For example, a form may be provided that enables a user to enter a grade for a flight lesson, notes for the flight lesson as well as other information that may be related to the flight lesson.” (Garzella at 0056)).
Referring to Claim 9, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
displaying a second page in response to a trigger operation of the user on the check-in information, the second page comprising check-in data corresponding to the first schedule (
Garzella teaches that, when the user selects check-in, the user provides flight event information and the system processes check-in. “Starting in block 604, at the conclusion of a flight event, a user may access a flight management system and select a flight event from a graphical user interface that the user would like to check-in. Upon selecting a flight event to check-in, a graphical user interface containing a form and a number of fields may be displayed that allows the user to enter information. As in block 606, the user may provide information about the flight event by entering the information into the fields of the form. For instance, where a flight event may be a flight lesson, the user may provide details about the flight lesson, such as a number of take offs and landings performed, maneuvers that may have been performed, etc. As in block 608, a process may determine whether the user has provided information that may be considered necessary. For example, at check-in, a user may need to provide a billing time, an aircraft service time and a total flying time. In a case where a user may not have included needed information, as in block 610, an error message may be provided to the user informing the user of any needed information that may be missing.” FIG. 6 shows the corresponding check-in flow, and the master flight record contains the check-in data including check-in time and other information. (Garzella at 0052; FIG. 6) Accordingly, Garzella teaches displaying a page responsive to the user’s check-in selection and that the page concerns the check-in data for the scheduled event. To the extent an explicit record-view page is required, it would have been obvious to display the stored master flight record data on a separate page in response to user selection, as a routine interface presentation of already-stored check-in information.).
Referring to Claim 10, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein if the first schedule is in progress, the check-in data comprises a number of participants and a number of real-time check- in persons (
Garzella teaches that a flight event may involve multiple participants, such as one or more pilots and an instructor, and that check-in data is recorded for the event. “a flight management system executing on the application server 102 may be accessed by a number of users, each of which may be assigned one or more roles and one or more profiles.” (Garzella at 0026) “ a user may be assigned multiple user roles 206 that allow the user to access different aspects of a flight management system 200. For example, in a flight management system 200 that contains user roles 206 for pilots, instructors, staff and maintenance, a user may be assigned one or more of these user roles 206. For instance, a user may be both a pilot and an instructor. Moreover, the user may also be employed by a flight entity as a staff member who manages a reception desk and also works as an aircraft maintenance employee for the flight entity.”(Garzella at 0035) “the flight event schedule can be shared with a number of users and/or linked with other schedules or calendars so that others viewing the schedules or calendars may see that a block of time may be unavailable to schedule a flight event.” (Garzella at 0059)).
Referring to Claim 11, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 9, wherein the check-in data comprises first check-in data and second check-in data, the first check-in data is configured to collect check-in persons and check-in times corresponding to the check-in persons, and the second check-in data is configured to collect participation information of a participant in the first schedule (
Garzella teaches that the master flight record includes participant-related information such as pilot and instructor information, as well as check-in related information such as check-in time and actual event data. “second flight event is checked-in, a new master flight record may be created and selected information from the original flight event that was added at dispatch and the first check-in may be added to the new master flight record. ”(Garzella at 0024), “a master flight record 104 may be created for the flight event. Information about the flight event may be recorded on the master flight record 104. For example, a check-out date, a start time, a flight resource (e.g., aircraft, simulator, classroom, etc.) as well as any other information that may be relevant to the flight event. Once created, the master flight record 104 may be saved to the data store 108 where the master flight record 104 may be accessible to the flight management system. Later, when a user accesses the flight management system to check-in the flight event, the master flight record 104 may be retrieved from the data store 108 and the master flight record” (Garzella at 0030), “Upon check-out, a master flight record 211 may be created for the flight event. The master flight record 211 may contain, but is not limited to, a date, a start time, an end time, a pilot, an instructor, a flight resource and any other information that may be related to the flight event. Upon checking-in a flight event, the master flight record 211 may be updated with information about the completed flight event. In addition to checking-in an originating flight event, the dispatch module 216 may allow a user to check-in additional flight events that may be related to the originating flight event”(Garzella at 0038 )Thus, Garzella teaches the substance of both person/time-specific check-in data and participant-related schedule information.).
Referring to Claim 12, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein the participation information comprises one or more of:
a participant identifier, an affiliated department, an invitation status, or a check-in status (
Garzella teaches participant identifiers and role/profile data for users involved in scheduled flight events, including pilot information, instructor information, and role/profile attributes. “an instructor and a student pilot may enter a PIN (personal identification number) that can be used as a signature. In some cases, FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) rules and/or regulations may stipulate that an instructor and a student pilot provide a signature for a flight lesson. By providing a PIN, an instructor and a student pilot can comply with these federal rules.”(Garzella at 0057) “The user validation module 212 may be configured to identify one or more user roles 206 and one or more user profiles 208 that may be stored in the data store 204 for a user. A user role 206 may be used to determine a level of security within a flight management system 200 that may be granted to a user. In some cases, a user may be assigned multiple user roles 206 that allow the user to access different aspects of a flight management system 200.” (Garzella at 0033) “The user validation module 212 may also identify at least one user profile 208 having user profile data for a user. A user profile 208 may be a collection of attributes that identify and describe a user. As an example, a user profile 208 may contain personal information about a user and information that relates to one or more user roles 206 associated with the user in the flight management system 200.” (Garzella at 0034)).
Referring to Claim 15, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising one or more of:
displaying a prompt message to prompt the user to transfer check-in data corresponding to the first schedule in response to the user triggering transfer of the first schedule; or receiving a third notification message for notifying the user to transfer check-in data corresponding to the first schedule in response to the user triggering transfer of the first schedule (
Garzella teaches a post-event review flow in which the user is prompted to provide and review post-flight information, in which the Examiner is interpreting as viewing check-in data that can be transferred. FIG. 7 shows “User selects Post Lesson Review 704,” “User provides grading information 706,” and “Finalize Post Lesson Review 714.” (Garzella at Fig. 7) “FIG. 7 is a flow diagram illustrating an example method for performing a post lesson review for a flight lesson. Beginning in block 704, a user may access a flight management system and select a flight lesson for which the user would like to perform a post lesson review. As in block 706, a graphical user interface may be provided that allows the user to provide grading information for the flight lesson. For example, a form may be provided that enables a user to enter a grade for a flight lesson, notes for the flight lesson as well as other information that may be related to the flight lesson.” (Garzella at 0056)).
Referring to Claim 16, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 15, further comprising:
displaying a third page for transferring the check-in data corresponding to the first schedule in response to a trigger operation of the user on the check-in data; stopping displaying the check-in information and the check-in data to the user in response to a transfer operation triggered by the user on the transfer page (
Garzella teaches user-accessible pages for schedule creation, check-in, and post-flight review, and stores check-in data in master flight records. (Garzella at Figs. 3, 6, and 7) “When a flight event and an associated flight resource are scheduled for a block of time, a record may be created and the record may be displayed in the flight event schedule 210 for the block of time. The record shown in the block of time can indicate that the flight event has been scheduled and that any related flight resources may be unavailable during the block of time.” (Garzella at 0036) “As in block 412, a flight event schedule can be updated to show the active status of the flight event. For example, a graphical user interface may display a scheduling calendar with blocks of time that show that a flight event has been scheduled for the block of time. The block of time in the scheduling calendar can be updated to show that the scheduled flight event is active (i.e., has started). As in block 414, a timer or a clock that records a time for the flight event may be started and may continue until the associated pre-flight event ends.” (Garzella at 0048) “Starting in block 604, at the conclusion of a flight event, a user may access a flight management system and select a flight event from a graphical user interface that the user would like to check-in. Upon selecting a flight event to check-in, a graphical user interface containing a form and a number of fields may be displayed that allows the user to enter information. ” (Garzella at 0052).
Referring to Claim 18, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
obtaining a second schedule in response to the user triggering copying of the first schedule, the second schedule not comprising check-in information set in the first schedule (
Garzella teaches that when an additional event is created from an originating event, selected information is copied into a new master flight record for the additional event. “Currently, flight entities that use existing systems may be limited to scheduling, dispatching and checking-in a single flight event. In a case where a flight event may result in two or more separate flight events (e.g., two flight lessons), a user may have to check-in the original flight event (e.g., check-in the original flight event for the first flight lesson), and then create an additional flight event (e.g., the second flight lesson), and reenter the check-out information from the original flight event prior to checking-in the additional flight event (e.g., second flight lesson).” (Garzella at 0016) “A master flight record 104 may be created for each additional flight event and information pertaining to the originating flight event may be written to the newly created master flight records 104. As an example, an originating flight event may include scheduling a flight simulator (or aircraft) for a flight simulation lesson (or flight).” (Garzella at 0031) “Upon check-out, a master flight record 211 may be created for the flight event. The master flight record 211 may contain, but is not limited to, a date, a start time, an end time, a pilot, an instructor, a flight resource and any other information that may be related to the flight event. Upon checking-in a flight event, the master flight record 211 may be updated with information about the completed flight event. In addition to checking-in an originating flight event, the dispatch module 216 may allow a user to check-in additional flight events that may be related to the originating flight event. For each additional flight event that may be checked-in, a master flight record 211 may be created for the additional flight event and information from the originating flight event may be copied to a master flight record 211 for an additional flight event.” (Garzella at 0038)).
Claim 21 recite limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1. Regarding, an electronic device, comprising:
a processor and a memory; wherein, the memory is configured to store instructions or a computer program; and the processor is configured to execute the instructions or the computer program in the memory to cause the electronic device (
Garzella expressly teaches a computing device/electronic device including processors and memory modules that store instructions and execute scheduling/check-in functions. Garzella discloses “Computing Device(s) 202,” “Processor(s) 230,” and “Memory Module(s) 232,” together with functional modules including “Scheduling Module 214,” “Dispatch Module 216,” and “UI Module 234.” (Garzella at FIG. 2) likewise discloses “Computing Device(s) 910,” “Processor(s) 912,” and “Memory Device(s) 920.” (Garzella at FIG. 9))
Claim 22 recite limitations that stand rejected via the art citations and rationale applied to claim 1. Regarding, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing instructions thereon, wherein when the instructions are executed on a device (
Garzella teaches memory devices and data stores that store program instructions executed by processors to perform the disclosed scheduling and check-in functions. Garzella discloses “Memory Device(s) 920” in association with “Processor(s) 912” of computing device(s) 910. (Garzella at FIG. 9) FIG. 2 likewise discloses “Memory Module(s) 232” associated with processor(s) 230 and functional modules. (Garzella at FIG. 2) Garzella explicitly states that “the computing device 202 may include modules containing instructions that when executed by a processor 230 perform certain actions.” (Garzella at 0033). Garzella also states that the data store may refer to “any device or combination of devices capable of storing, accessing, organizing and/or retrieving data,” including storage media such as SAN, cloud storage, volatile or non-volatile RAM, optical media, or hard-drive type media. (Garzella at 0043)
Accordingly, Garzella teaches a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon, where execution of those instructions by a processor causes the device to perform the claimed functions.),
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 5, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Publication US 20150066342, Garzella to hereinafter Garzella in view of United States Patent Publication US 20200258029, Jung et al.
Referring to Claim 2, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the check-in time comprises one of:
Garzella does not explicitly teach before the first schedule starts, after the first schedule starts, or after the first schedule ends.
However, Jung teaches before the first schedule starts, after the first schedule starts, or after the first schedule ends (
Jung teaches schedule time comparisons and changing schedule-related operations based on time relationships between schedules. “to output an option capable of changing the operation of the device related to the first schedule based on the at least partially overlapping section between the first schedule and the second schedule.” (Jung at 0011). “identifying a section in which time information of the first schedule and time information of the second schedule at least partially overlap each other by comparing the time information of the first schedule with the time information of the second schedule; and outputting an option capable of changing the operation of the device related to the first schedule based on the at least partially overlapping section between the first schedule and the second schedule” (Jung at 0013) “According to an embodiment, the processor 120 may output an option capable of changing the operation of the device associated with the first schedule based on a section overlapping between the first schedule and the second schedule” (Jung at 0178) “identifying a section in which time information of the first schedule and time information of the second schedule at least partially overlap each other by comparing the time information of the first schedule with the time information of the second schedule; and outputting an option capable of changing the operation of the device related to the first schedule based on the overlapping section between the first schedule and the second schedule.” (Jung at 0379). The processor identifies overlapping schedule times and outputs options based on those times. ).
Garzella and Jung are both directed to the analysis of scheduling (See Garzella at 0020, 0021, 0026-0028; Jung at 0055, 0138). Garzella discloses that additional elements, such as the calendars can be considered (See Garzella at 0036). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garzella, which teaches detecting and repairing scheduling technology problems in view of Jung, to efficiently apply analysis of scheduling to enhancing the capability to modify various times for events to start or end. (See Jung at 0225, 0232, 0297).
Referring to Claim 5, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein displaying the first page in response to the trigger operation of the user on the check-in information comprises:
displaying the first page in response to a trigger operation of the user on a first control in a first notification message or a second control in the first schedule, the first control and the second control each being configured to view the check-in information of the first schedule, and the first notification message being sent after the first schedule is created and configured to notify the user that check-in settings for the first schedule have been completed (
Garzella teaches that the flight event schedule 210 is an electronic calendar from which a user may locate a scheduled flight event and select an associated option. “The scheduling module 214 can then schedule a block of time for the flight event in the flight event schedule 210 and can reserve a flight resource 209 for the flight event. The flight event schedule 210 may be an electronic calendar stored in the data store 204 that can be made available to users of the flight management system 200. The flight event schedule 210 may be divided into segments or blocks of time. When a flight event and an associated flight resource are scheduled for a block of time, a record may be created and the record may be displayed in the flight event schedule 210 for the block of time.” (Garzella at 0036), “graphical user interface may display a scheduling calendar with blocks of time that show that a flight event has been scheduled for the block of time. The block of time in the scheduling calendar can be updated to show that the scheduled flight event is active (i.e., has started). As in block 414, a timer or a clock that records a time for the flight event may be started and may continue until the associated pre-flight event ends.” (Garzella at 0048) ).
Garzella does not explicitly teach the first control and the second control each being configured to view the check-in information of the first schedule, and the first notification message being sent after the first schedule is created and configured to notify the user that check-in settings for the first schedule have been completed.
However, Jung teaches the first control and the second control each being configured to view the check-in information of the first schedule, and the first notification message being sent after the first schedule is created and configured to notify the user that check-in settings for the first schedule have been completed (
Jung teaches notification messages with controls associated with schedules, such as “SUSAN REQUESTED LAUNDRY SCHEDULE. DO YOU ACCEPT?” together with “STATE VIEW ACCEPT REJECT” in FIG. 18, and conflict messages with multiple selectable controls in (Jung at Fig. 17A, 17B) Jung also teaches schedule pages and Add Event screens accessed from the schedule view. “” (Jung at 0271, 0279, 0282).
Garzella and Jung are both directed to the analysis of scheduling (See Garzella at 0020, 0021, 0026-0028; Jung at 0055, 0138). Garzella discloses that additional elements, such as the calendars can be considered (See Garzella at 0036). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garzella, which teaches detecting and repairing scheduling technology problems in view of Jung, to efficiently apply analysis of scheduling to enhancing the capability to modify various times for events to start or end. (See Jung at 0225, 0232, 0297).
Referring to Claim 13, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 10, Garzella does not explicitly teach wherein the participant comprises one or more of: a participation person invited to the first schedule; a person not invited to the first schedule but who checks in; or a person not invited to the first schedule, who does not check in, but who joins a meeting.
However, Jung teaches a participation person invited to the first schedule (
Jung teaches multi-user shared schedules and user interaction with schedules among several users in a common calendar ecosystem. (Jung at Fig. 17A, 18, 22, and 23) “may acquire a response of the other user and may register the schedule information in the calendar application based on a response (e.g., an acceptance response) of the other user.” (Jung at 0183) “based on a user input (e.g., acceptance) associated with the suggested option. According to an embodiment, the processor 120 may perform an operation of receiving a response of acceptance or rejection from the user B and further suggesting an additional option associated with the device schedule based on the received response.” (Jung at 0240). “ the electronic device 101 may identify whether the second user input accepts (or applies) or cancels a change in the device schedule according to the recommendation information. According to an embodiment, it is assumed that the second user input is an input of accepting (or applying) the change in the device schedule.” (Jung at 0263) “According to an embodiment, as shown in the example of the screen 2003, as to the request information, the device schedule (e.g., washing schedule) may be requested from the user (e.g., “Susan”) of the electronic device 101, and state information (e.g., state view, acceptance, and rejection) related to the device schedule may be provided” (Jung at 0313));
Garzella and Jung are both directed to the analysis of scheduling (See Garzella at 0020, 0021, 0026-0028; Jung at 0055, 0138). Garzella discloses that additional elements, such as the calendars can be considered (See Garzella at 0036). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garzella, which teaches detecting and repairing scheduling technology problems in view of Jung, to efficiently apply analysis of scheduling to enhancing the capability to modify various times for events to start or end. (See Jung at 0225, 0232, 0297).
Claims 6, 7, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Publication US 20150066342, Garzella to hereinafter Garzella in view of United States Patent Publication US 20100169146, Hoyne et al.
Referring to Claim 6, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 1, Garzella does not explicitly teach further comprising: displaying the check-in time on a schedule creation page corresponding to the first schedule in response to the check-in information settings being completed by the user.
However, Hoyne teaches further comprising: displaying the check-in time on a schedule creation page corresponding to the first schedule in response to the check-in information settings being completed by the user (
Hoyne teaches creating and storing a calendar event based on user input task information including time/date information. “creating and storing, within memory, a first calendar event corresponding to the task within a calendar of the user scheduled on the date…”(Hoyne at Claim 1) and when multiple events are needed, “creating and storing a plurality of calendar events… according to the date, the number of days, and the number of hours assigned to the task” (Hoyne at Claim 2). Jung likewise shows schedule creation pages with displayed “Start” and “End” fields in Add Event screens (Hoyne at Fig. 34A, 34C). ).
Garzella, Jung, and Hoyne are all directed to the analysis of scheduling (See Garzella at 0020, 0021, 0026-0028; Jung at 0055, 0138; Hoyne at 0003, 0018-0021). Garzella discloses that additional elements, such as the calendars can be considered (See Garzella at 0036). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garzella in view of Jung, which teaches detecting and repairing scheduling technology problems in view of Hoyne, to efficiently apply analysis of scheduling to improving the processing of scheduling to include displaying of scheduled information. (See Hoyne at 0024, 0032, 0034, 0047).
Referring to Claim 7, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising:
displaying an edit page (See Hoyne) corresponding to the first schedule in response to an edit operation triggered by the user on the first schedule (
Garzella teaches that users can locate scheduled flight events in the flight event schedule 210 and select options to interact with those events, after which the system presents corresponding information-entry screens. “The scheduling module 214 can then schedule a block of time for the flight event in the flight event schedule 210 and can reserve a flight resource 209 for the flight event. The flight event schedule 210 may be an electronic calendar stored in the data store 204 that can be made available to users of the flight management system 200. The flight event schedule 210 may be divided into segments or blocks of time. When a flight event and an associated flight resource are scheduled for a block of time, a record may be created and the record may be displayed in the flight event schedule 210 for the block of time.” (Garzella at 0036), “graphical user interface may display a scheduling calendar with blocks of time that show that a flight event has been scheduled for the block of time. The block of time in the scheduling calendar can be updated to show that the scheduled flight event is active (i.e., has started). As in block 414, a timer or a clock that records a time for the flight event may be started and may continue until the associated pre-flight event ends.” (Garzella at 0048));
Garzella does not explicitly teach updating the first schedule to a schedule that does not require check-in in response to an operation triggered by the user on the edit page to modify the first schedule to a schedule that does not require check-in.
However, Hoyne teaches updating the first schedule to a schedule that does not require check-in in response to an operation triggered by the user on the edit page to modify the first schedule to a schedule that does not require check-in (
Hoyne teaches modifying calendar events, including rescheduling when conflicts arise. (Hoyne at 0379). Jung teaches editable event pages such as Add Event screens with configurable options and fields. (Hoyne at Fig. 34A–34C). ).
Garzella, Jung, and Hoyne are all directed to the analysis of scheduling (See Garzella at 0020, 0021, 0026-0028; Jung at 0055, 0138; Hoyne at 0003, 0018-0021). Garzella discloses that additional elements, such as the calendars can be considered (See Garzella at 0036). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garzella in view of Jung, which teaches detecting and repairing scheduling technology problems in view of Hoyne, to efficiently apply analysis of scheduling to improving the processing of scheduling to include displaying of scheduled information. (See Hoyne at 0024, 0032, 0034, 0047).
Referring to Claim 14, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 9, Garzella does not explicitly teach wherein if the first schedule is a repetitive schedule, the check-in data corresponding to the first schedule is collected into different worksheets of the same table each time the first schedule is repeated; or the check-in data corresponding to the first schedule is collected into the same worksheet, the worksheet comprises a filter field, and the filter field is configured to screen check-in data corresponding to an ith execution of the first schedule.
However, Hoyne teaches wherein if the first schedule is a repetitive schedule, the check-in data corresponding to the first schedule is collected into different worksheets of the same table each time the first schedule is repeated; or the check-in data corresponding to the first schedule is collected into the same worksheet, the worksheet comprises a filter field, and the filter field is configured to screen check-in data corresponding to an ith execution of the first schedule (
Hoyne teaches that when a task includes supplemental scheduling information, the system creates “a plurality of calendar events corresponding to the task within the calendar of the user scheduled according to the date, the number of days, and the number of hours assigned to the task.” (Hoyne at Claim 2)).
Garzella, Jung, and Hoyne are all directed to the analysis of scheduling (See Garzella at 0020, 0021, 0026-0028; Jung at 0055, 0138; Hoyne at 0003, 0018-0021). Garzella discloses that additional elements, such as the calendars can be considered (See Garzella at 0036). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garzella in view of Jung, which teaches detecting and repairing scheduling technology problems in view of Hoyne, to efficiently apply analysis of scheduling to improving the processing of scheduling to include displaying of scheduled information. (See Hoyne at 0024, 0032, 0034, 0047).
Referring to Claim 17, Garzella teaches the method according to claim 15, Garzella does not explicitly teach further comprising:
if the first schedule is a repetitive schedule and a check-in form corresponding to the first schedule is not transferred before a next execution of the first schedule, collecting check-in data corresponding to the next execution of the first schedule through a newly created check-in form in response to the next execution of the first schedule.
However, Hoyne teaches further comprising:
if the first schedule is a repetitive schedule and a check-in form corresponding to the first schedule is not transferred before a next execution of the first schedule, collecting check-in data corresponding to the next execution of the first schedule through a newly created check-in form in response to the next execution of the first schedule (
Hoyne teaches creation of a plurality of calendar events for repeated task executions. “As shown a repeat box can be checked if the task is a recurring task, e.g., one that must be performed in the future periodically or from time-to-time” (Hoyne at 0040) “a plurality of calendar events corresponding to the task within the calendar of the user scheduled according to the date, the number of days, and the number of hours assigned to the task.” (Hoyne at Claim 2)).
Garzella, Jung, and Hoyne are all directed to the analysis of scheduling (See Garzella at 0020, 0021, 0026-0028; Jung at 0055, 0138; Hoyne at 0003, 0018-0021). Garzella discloses that additional elements, such as the calendars can be considered (See Garzella at 0036). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Garzella in view of Jung, which teaches detecting and repairing scheduling technology problems in view of Hoyne, to efficiently apply analysis of scheduling to improving the processing of scheduling to include displaying of scheduled information. (See Hoyne at 0024, 0032, 0034, 0047).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nasir, U.S. Patent Number. 11443285, (discussing the use Artificial intelligence for scheduling meetings. ).
Grebner et al., W.O. Pub. 2011088053, (discuss the user of automated assistant for scheduling).
Masli, et al., The Design And Usage Of Tentative Events For Time-Based Social Coordination In The Enterprise, http://www.ambuehler.ethz.ch/CDstore/www2011/proceedings/p765.pdf, Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World Wide Web, 2011 (discussing the scheduling of social enterprise calendars.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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.
/UCHE BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights