DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and addressed below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. No action on the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/20/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a free time recognition unit that recognizes free time of a user…” (claim 1; supporting structure can be found in ¶ [0023], which includes a processor, memory, database, and a computer program);
“a free time position recognition unit that recognizes a free time starting position…” (claims 1 and 2; supporting structure can be found in ¶ [0023], which includes a processor, memory, database, and a computer program);
“a candidate action selection unit that selects…an action…” (claims 1-5; supporting structure can be found in ¶ [0023], which includes a processor, memory, database, and a computer program);
“a candidate action information provision unit that causes a display device…to display…” (claims 1, 2, and 6; supporting structure can be found in ¶ [0023], which includes a processor, memory, database, and a computer program);
“a display device…to display an action suggestion …” (claims 1, 2, 6-9; supporting structure can be found in ¶ [0023], which includes a processor, memory, database, and a computer program);
“an activity purpose recognition unit that recognizes an activity purpose the user desires…” (claim 4; supporting structure can be found in ¶ [0023], which includes a processor, memory, database, and a computer program);
“a remaining time monitor unit that recognizes the user has started the candidate action…” (claims 7-9; supporting structure can be found in ¶ [0023], which includes a processor, memory, database, and a computer program);
“a schedule recognition unit that recognizes a schedule of the user…” (claim 9; supporting structure can be found in ¶ [0023], which includes a processor, memory, database, and a computer program);
(A) Each of the limitations (1) - (8) recited above use the generic placeholder “unit” for performing a claimed function, or other generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181, 1A (“The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.” Welker Bearing Co., v. PHO, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008”). Accordingly, recitations of “unit” in (1)-(8) above pass prong A.
(B) each of the phrases following the bolded portion in limitations (1)-(8) constitute functional language modifying the generic terms in prong (A), respectively.
(C) each of the terms preceding “unit” in (1)-(8) above do not connote sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. In addition, none of the generic placeholders recited in (A) are modified by sufficient structure, materials, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This application also includes one or more claim limitations that do use the word “step,” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a free time recognition step of recognizing free time of a user…” (claim 10; supporting structure can be found in ¶ [0023], which includes a processor, memory, database, and a computer program);
“a free time starting position recognition step of recognizing a free time starting position…” (claim 10; supporting structure can be found in ¶ [0023], which includes a processor, memory, database, and a computer program);
“a candidate action selection step of selecting…an action…” (claim 10; supporting structure can be found in ¶ [0023], which includes a processor, memory, database, and a computer program);
“a candidate action information provision step of causing a display device…to display…” (claim 10; supporting structure can be found in ¶ [0023], which includes a processor, memory, database, and a computer program).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the predetermined amount of time” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis - Step 1
Claims 1-9 recite a system, therefore claims 1-9 are a machine, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 10 recites a method, therefore claim 10 is a process, which is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
An action suggestion system comprising:
a free time recognition unit that recognizes free time of a user;
a free time position recognition unit that recognizes a free time starting position being a position at which the user is located when the free time starts;
a candidate action selection unit that selects, as a candidate action to be suggested to the user, an action that the user can perform using the free time, the action including travel between the free time starting position and a destination by any of a plurality of travel methods and a predetermined activity at the destination; and
a candidate action information provision unit that causes a display device used by the user to display an action suggestion screen displaying a required travel time between the free time starting position and the destination for each of the plurality of travel methods and a content of the predetermined activity.
These limitations, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as certain mental processes and/or mathematical concepts. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as in the mind (or on paper). For example, “recognizes free time of a user…,” “recognizes a free time starting position…,” and “selects…an action that the user can perform…” encompass a human mentally determining potential actions that a user can perform when the user has free time. Thus, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The other independent claims of similar scope of claim 1 also recite at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding Prong 2 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
An action suggestion system comprising:
a free time recognition unit that recognizes free time of a user;
a free time position recognition unit that recognizes a free time starting position being a position at which the user is located when the free time starts;
a candidate action selection unit that selects, as a candidate action to be suggested to the user, an action that the user can perform using the free time, the action including travel between the free time starting position and a destination by any of a plurality of travel methods and a predetermined activity at the destination; and
a candidate action information provision unit that causes a display device used by the user to display an action suggestion screen displaying a required travel time between the free time starting position and the destination for each of the plurality of travel methods and a content of the predetermined activity.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular process for determining potential actions that a user can perform when the user has free time, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP§ 2106.05).
Furthermore, the additional elements of the free time recognition unit, free time position recognition unit, candidate action selection unit, and candidate action information provision unit are mere instructions to apply the above-noted abstract idea by using a general processor and computer system to perform the process. In particular, the devices recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional element of the “display unit” is mere use of the judicial exception in a particular field of use. MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer determining potential actions that a user can perform when the user has free time amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, and the display unit is merely use of the abstract idea in a particular field of use.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claims 1 and 10 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2-9 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claims to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, claims 2-9 are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception (“recognizes a free time ending position…selects…an action…,” “selects the candidate action by referring to an activity database,” “recognizes an activity purpose that the user desires…selects candidate action…,” “selects…an action that the user can perform…,” “recognizes that the user has started the candidate action…,” “stay extension suggestion information…,” “recognizes a schedule of the user…,”). Therefore, dependent claims 2-9 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claims 1 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0097887 to Hori.
Regarding claim 1, Hori discloses:
An action suggestion system comprising:
a free time recognition unit that recognizes free time of a user (¶ [0023] describing recognizing vacant time of a user’s schedule);
a free time position recognition unit that recognizes a free time starting position being a position at which the user is located when the free time starts (¶ [0029] describing determining a position of the user when the vacant time starts);
a candidate action selection unit that selects, as a candidate action to be suggested to the user, an action that the user can perform using the free time, the action including travel between the free time starting position and a destination by any of a plurality of travel methods and a predetermined activity at the destination (¶¶ [0024], [0036] describing suggesting candidate actions to the user to be performed during the vacant time, which includes the travel time to the activity); and
a candidate action information provision unit that causes a display device used by the user to display an action suggestion screen displaying a required travel time between the free time starting position and the destination for each of the plurality of travel methods and a content of the predetermined activity (¶¶ [0036], [0042] describing displaying the suggested actions to be performed by the user during the vacant time, which includes travel time to the activity and the activity itself).
Regarding claim 2, Hori discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hori further discloses:
wherein the free time position recognition unit recognizes a free time ending position being a position at which the user is located when the free time ends (¶ [0036] describing recognizing a vacant time ending position, which is the location that the next scheduled event is located),
the candidate action selection unit selects, when the free time starting position and the free time ending position are different, an action as the candidate action, the action including travel from the free time starting position to the destination by any of a plurality of first travel methods, the predetermined activity at the destination, and travel from the destination to the free time ending position by any of a plurality of second travel methods (¶ [0036] describing the free time starting position and the free time ending position being different, and suggesting an action that can be performed during the vacant time, which includes travel from the starting position to the action and travel from the action to the free time ending position, which is the position of the next scheduled event), and
the candidate action information provision unit causes, when the free time starting position and the free time ending position are different, the display device to display the action suggestion screen displaying a required travel time from the free time starting position to the destination for each of the plurality of first travel methods, a required travel time from the destination to the free time ending position for each of the plurality of second travel methods, and the content of the predetermined activity (¶¶ [0026], [0036], [0041] describing that the vacant time starting position and the vacant time ending position being different, displaying the suggested actions, which includes adjusted travel times from the vacant time starting position to the action, and from the action to the vacant time ending position, and the activity itself).
Regarding claim 3, Hori discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hori further discloses:
wherein the candidate action selection unit selects the candidate action by referring to an activity database in which evaluation information about a plurality of target activities is recorded and extracting the predetermined activity from the plurality of target activities having a high rating equal to or higher than a predetermined level (¶ [0037] describing selecting the suggested activity based on the user’s rating of importance of the activities stored in a database, which would be based on a user threshold of importance).
Regarding claim 4, Hori discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hori further discloses:
an activity purpose recognition unit that recognizes an activity purpose the user desires, wherein the candidate action selection unit selects the candidate action by referring to an activity database in which an activity purpose of a plurality of target activities is recorded and extracting the predetermined activity from the plurality of target activities the activity purpose of which is recorded, the predetermined activity matching the activity purpose the user desires (¶¶ [0037], [0038] describing the user ranking the activities in a database based on importance to the user, which represents the user’s desire, and selecting the suggested action based on the user’s desire, or importance, of the activity).
Regarding claim 5, Hori discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Hori further discloses:
wherein the candidate action selection unit selects, as an action that the user can perform using the free time, an action that the user can perform within the free time or an action that the user can perform by adding a predetermined amount of time before and/or after the free time (¶ [0036] describing selecting an action that the user can performing during the vacant time period).
Claim 10 contains all the limitations of claim 1 (i.e., claim 10 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1). Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hori in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0360485 to McGavran et al.
Regarding claim 7, Hori discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Hori does not expressly disclose a remaining time monitor unit that recognizes that the user has started the candidate action, monitors a remaining time of the free time at the destination, and causes the display device to display warning information indicating that the remaining time is running short when the remaining time is equal to or shorter than a predetermined determination time.
McGavran et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches a remaining time monitor unit that recognizes that the user has started the candidate action, monitors a remaining time of the free time at the destination, and causes the display device to display warning information indicating that the remaining time is running short when the remaining time is equal to or shorter than a predetermined determination time (¶ [0045] describing generating leave alerts when the remaining free time is ending and the user must leave to make it to the next scheduled event; ¶ [0003] describing that the calendar events and alerts are displayed on several different devices).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hori’s invention to incorporate alerting the user when the vacant time is ending, as taught by McGavran et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in preventing a user from being late to the next scheduled event (McGavran et al. at ¶ [0045]).
Potential Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, and 9 would be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, if Applicant overcomes the above § 101 rejection.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of potential allowable subject matter:
The combination of claim limitations of when a first case in which the candidate action can be performed within the free time and a second case in which the candidate action can be performed by adding the predetermined amount of time before and/or after the free time occur due to a difference between the plurality of travel methods, the candidate action information provision unit causes the display device to display the action suggestion screen displaying the travel methods in the first case and the second case together with a required travel time of the travel methods of claim 6, when considered with all other claim features contained in the claims from which claim 6 depends, renders the claim, as well as its dependents, novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The combination of claim limitations of wherein the remaining time monitor unit causes the display device to display stay extension suggestion information including a suggestion to extend a stay duration at the destination when the remaining time is equal to or shorter than the determination time and information about the travel methods available when the stay duration at the destination is extended of claim 8, when considered with all other claim features contained in the claims from which claim 8 depends, renders the claim, as well as its dependents, novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The closest prior art, Hori and McGavran et al., teaches recognizing a free time of a user, including a starting position, selecting a candidate action to be suggested to the user to perform during the free time, including travel time to the action and from the action to the free time ending position, and displaying the suggested free time action to the user via a display device. However, there is no teaching of a first case in which the candidate action can be performed within the free time and a second case in which the candidate action can be performed by adding the predetermined amount of time before and/or after the free time occur due to a difference between the plurality of travel methods, the candidate action information provision unit causes the display device to display the action suggestion screen displaying the travel methods in the first case and the second case together with a required travel time of the travel methods (claim 6), or wherein the remaining time monitor unit causes the display device to display stay extension suggestion information including a suggestion to extend a stay duration at the destination when the remaining time is equal to or shorter than the determination time and information about the travel methods available when the stay duration at the destination is extended (claim 8).
As such, the combination of Hori and McGavran et al. does not teach the combination of a first case in which the candidate action can be performed within the free time and a second case in which the candidate action can be performed by adding the predetermined amount of time before and/or after the free time occur due to a difference between the plurality of travel methods, the candidate action information provision unit causes the display device to display the action suggestion screen displaying the travel methods in the first case and the second case together with a required travel time of the travel methods, as required by claim 6, or wherein the remaining time monitor unit causes the display device to display stay extension suggestion information including a suggestion to extend a stay duration at the destination when the remaining time is equal to or shorter than the determination time and information about the travel methods available when the stay duration at the destination is extended, as required by claim 8. No other prior art has been found which remedies the deficiencies of the Hori and McGavran et al. combination. Therefore, the claims 6 and 8 would be allowable over the prior art. Claim 9 depend from claim 8 and would be allowable for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2016193856 to Barbieri et al. teaches extending an activity during performance of the activity (¶ [0011]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0334907 to Rodden et al. teaches suggesting an action to a user based on free time before the next scheduled event (¶¶ [0246] – [0251);
U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0365653 to Cleaver et al. teaches extending actions into free time slots on a schedule when the scheduled time cannot accommodate the scheduled action (¶¶ [0057] – [0060]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0012834 to Cannata et al. teaches suggesting activities to a user based on a user preference (¶¶ [0017] – [0023]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0006290 to Tomkins et al. teaches suggesting an activity to a user that includes the mode of transportation and location of the user (¶¶ [0003] – [0015]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0082376 to Levitt teaches suggesting activities to a user during free time slots on the user’s calendar (¶¶ [0019] – [0032]); and
U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0018635 to Suzuki teaches suggesting activities when free time is detected on a user’s calendar (¶¶ [0133] – [0136]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JOHN D HOLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights