DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This communication is a non-final action in response to the application filed on 3/18/2025. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite “wherein when an automated response is enable for…” which should be corrected as “wherein when an automated response is enabled for…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-17 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 1-17 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), without a practical application and without providing significantly more.
Regarding Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-12 are directed to system (i.e., machine/apparatus), Claim 13-17 are directed to a method (i.e., process), all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 1 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.04, Claims 1 and 13 are directed specifically to the abstract idea of receiving and responding to a change of status message for an event by receiving an event status message including a change in a status of an event; and in response to the received event status message to extract from the received event status message one or more event facilities conducting at least one event impacted by the event status message; determine whether the received event status message is generated by one or more sources authorized to change the status of events conducted at a corresponding one of the one or more event facilities; wherein when the received event status message is generated from an authorized source, identify the one or more users associated with at least one event facility impacted by the received event status message; and generate one or more notification messages including the change in the status of the event and send the generated one or more notification messages to the one or more second processing devices of the identified one or more users; receiving one of the one or more notification messages; and in response to the received notification message, to: extract from the received notification message the change in the status of the event; determine a type of the change in the status of the event from a plurality of types of changes in the status of events; compare the determined type of the change in the status to one or more responses enabled for the plurality of types of changes in the status of events; and wherein when an response is enable for the determined type of the change in the status, activate the response to the received notification message; which include mental processes (i.e., evaluating and analyzing message data for a judgement and opinion for status change and responses), and certain methods of organizing human activities based on managing personal behavior and interactions between people (following rules and instructions for evaluating message data for determining event status change and activating a response). Claims 2-12 and 14-17 are directed to performing the abstract idea of claim 1 and 13 with further details on the data analyzed, thus, they are directed to the mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity for similar reasons as provided above for claim 1 and 13. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A-Prong 2 of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05, while the claims 1-17 recite additional elements such as a communication network, the system comprising: a server including a server processor and a server memory operatively coupled to the server processor, the server memory storing server instructions executable by the server processor; and one or more user devices, operable by one or more users of the system, each of the one or more user devices including a user device processor and a user device memory operatively coupled to the user device processor, the one or more user devices communicating with the server over a communication network, each of the user device memory storing user device instructions executable by the user device processor, processing devices, automated (i.e., using a computer/processor), IOT devices; these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked to perform instructions of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Regarding Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.05, while the claims 1-17 recite additional elements which are such as a communication network, the system comprising: a server including a server processor and a server memory operatively coupled to the server processor, the server memory storing server instructions executable by the server processor; and one or more user devices, operable by one or more users of the system, each of the one or more user devices including a user device processor and a user device memory operatively coupled to the user device processor, the one or more user devices communicating with the server over a communication network, each of the user device memory storing user device instructions executable by the user device processor, processing devices, automated (i.e., using a computer/processor), IOT devices, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked to perform instructions of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-17 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Closest prior art to the invention include:
Bansal et al (US 6898569 B1), "automatically generating an attendee notification message using the attendee notification information based on the meeting status information; and "
"sending the attendee notification message to the attendee. "
"receiving a response to the attendee notification message from an attendee, the response changing the time of the appointment, wherein the meeting status information indicates if the user will be late for the appointment";
Bjorkman et al (US 10997564 B2), "automatically updating the change calendar and instructing the user device and the second user device to display the change calendar by reconfiguring the plurality of calendar blocks according to the second request."
", the method performed by an electronic change manager made available by a server and accessible from the user device, the method comprising the electronic change manager: "
"automatically updating the change calendar displayed on the user device based on receiving a modification of the change in the change conflict summary";
Bhogal et al (US 8688489 B2), "transmitting a notification message to each of the one or more attendees of the second meeting, wherein the notification message informs the one or more attendees of a schedule change and contains an updated scheduled time for the second meeting."
"transmitting a notification message to the identified contact, wherein the notification message contains: "
", and may additionally identify the identified contact and attendees of the cancelled meeting. In response to receiving meeting cancellation notice 201";
Bansal et al (US 20210004770 A1), regarding “Technologies described herein offer a contextually aware schedule service technology. User-related activity is monitored to detect a future event related to the user. Information is extracted from the monitored user-related activity information. The extracted information about the future event can be evaluated to determine whether it is related to another future event associated with the user. When a particular future event for the user changes, a set of related events may be utilized to determine a related event is affected by the change. For example, a user may be notified to cancel or modify the future event. Additionally, service providers associated with the affected event(s) may be notified, or a personal assistant service may facilitate automatically rescheduling the affected events.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHMET YESILDAG whose telephone number is (571)272-3257. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights