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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/05/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 76-90 and 96-104 are pending. Claims 76 is amended. Claims 101-104 are new. Claims 91-95 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/05/2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 16, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and instead directed to a specific technical solution for automated verification in distributed accommodation sharing systems. Applicant also argues that the claims recite establishing a communication interface with a
comprehensive saving management device for verifying, in real-time, that penalty charges have been deposited into accounts designated by an operator and other limitations which are not generic but specific devices for automated real-time financial verification integrated with the web server.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite concepts, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, are a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to fundamental economic practices in the travel industry or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (interactions between people, social activities) or commercial or legal interactions (sales activities) such as allowing the sharing of accommodations and ensuring that accommodations be given back at a promised date and time by enforcing a penalty charge. The additional elements (web platform, web server, database, devices, terminal, PC cluster, server nodes, communication interface, comprehensive saving management device, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality (see par. 0077, 0080-0081 and 0085 and fig.1-2 of the specification) such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant argues, on pages 16-17, that the claims solve technical problems through specific system integration. Applicant argues that there is a specific automated protocol with time-based triggers. The system automatically monitors predetermined time periods and generates dispatch commands when conditions are not met.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The various penalty charges related to accommodation sharing recited in the claim limitations are part of the abstract idea (sales activity or managing interactions between people). With respect to an alleged improvement/technical solution, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)). Here, the alleged improvement is to making accommodation sharing more realistic and to alleviate a travelers burden of paying costly lodging expenses (See specification, Par. 0003), which is considered an improvement to the abstract idea (sales activity/business practice). The automation of the monitoring time periods and/or automating payments or protocols do not provide a technical solution. The claims do not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or any technology or technical field and as mentioned above do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are considered ineligible.
Applicant argues, on page 17, that the claims are similar to DDR holdings and that the claims recites specific technical features that constitute significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The DDR case was considered eligible because the claims recite a specific way to automate the creation of a composite web page by an outsource provider that incorporates elements from multiple sources in order to solve a problem faced by websites on the internet. As a result, the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Here, as mentioned above, the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant argues, on pages 18-20, that the claims recite significantly more. Applicant argues that the claim integrates multiple distinct technical systems in a specific configuration. Applicant also argues that the claimed invention provides a technological improvement in distributed system reliability because prior to this invention, distributed sharing required trust-based voluntary compliance with no automated verification mechanism, manual intervention for enforcement, and geographic distance preventing timely verification.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As mentioned above, the additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more to the exception and any alleged improvements are not technical but rather to the abstract idea. Furthermore, because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore, the claims may distinguish over the prior art but they are not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/05/2026 with respect to the 112f claim interpretation has been considered. Examiner notes that the purpose of the 112f claim interpretation is establishing on the record that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification. Since there is no accompanying rejections, there is no withdrawal of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 80, 82, 84 and 86 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 80, 82 and 84 recite ‘an operator terminal’, but claim 76 has been amended to recite ‘an operator terminal’. The dependent claims should recite ‘the operator terminal’ for proper antecedent basis.
Claim 86 recites’ a communication interface’, but claim 76 has been amended to recite ‘a communication interface’. The dependent claim should recite ‘the communication interface’.
These appear to be typographical errors/oversight and for the purpose of compact prosecution will be interpreted as such. Appropriate correction is required.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 76-90 and 96-104 would be considered allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. The closest prior art of record is included in the nonfinal rejection mailed on 03/28/2024.
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 76-90 and 96-104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 76-90 and 96-104 is directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitations of Claim 76 recites:
A method of providing a … accommodation sharing service, comprising:
storing information on multiple accommodations …, …, wherein the storing comprises storing information related to opening time, closing time, and location information for each of the multiple accommodations …;
receiving use requests of the accommodations from … multiple clients, respectively, … each of the multiple clients being identified by a member ID assigned to each of the multiple clients; and
forming an accommodation sharing candidate group based on the use requests of the accommodations,
wherein the forming of the accommodation sharing candidate group comprises:
transmitting a guidance message comprising information for reservation of the accommodations to …the multiple clients …;
receiving a response message comprising processed results of the multiple clients according to the information for reservation of the accommodations from each of the multiple clients; and
confirming the accommodation sharing candidate group as an accommodation sharing group having a closed loop sharing scheme, based on the response message,
wherein the accommodation sharing group includes a first client living in a first accommodation in a first region, a second client living in a second accommodation in a second region, and a third client living in a third accommodation in a third region, and wherein … manages the closed loop sharing scheme by:
monitoring opening and closing states of the multiple accommodations;
maintaining communications with the multiple terminals through the communication unit;
confirming the accommodation sharing group such that the first client utilizes the second accommodation during a first period, the second client utilizes the third accommodation during a second period, and the third client utilizes the first accommodation during a third period,
… verifying, in real-time, that penalty charges have been deposited into accounts designated by an operator;
automatically initiating deposit verification queries … upon receiving confirmation messages from the multiple clients;
generating and transmitting dispatch command messages to an operator … when notification messages indicating accommodation status are not received from a specific client … within a predetermined time period from scheduled opening or closing times for a corresponding accommodation;
receiving identification information from the operator … confirming physical presence of an operator at the corresponding accommodation location; and
executing automated penalty charge transfers into accounts associated with respective member IDs through … upon receiving the identification information from the operator … .
The claim limitations as drafted, recite concepts, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, are a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to fundamental economic practices in the travel industry or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (interactions between people, social activities) or commercial or legal interactions (sales activities) such as allowing the sharing of accommodations and ensuring that accommodations be given back at a promised date and time by enforcing a penalty charge. The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 76:
Web platform based accommodation sharing service
Database
Web server comprising a database and a host device
wherein the web server is implemented as a PC- cluster based server comprising multiple server nodes for distributing processing across the multiple server nodes and balancing computational loads among the multiple server nodes
relational database structure
Multiple terminals
Host device
Communication unit configured to communicate
Communication network
establishing a communication interface with a comprehensive saving management device
operator terminal
client terminal
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements (see par. 0077, 0080-0081 and fig.1-2 of the spec), when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 77-90 and 96-104 further narrow the abstract idea recited in Claim 76. Therefore, claims 77-90 and 96-104 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 96
executing the monitoring of opening and closing states through an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) embedded in the host device;
processing the concurrent client requests through a digital signal processor (DSP) of the host device; and
performing the load balancing operations through a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) configured to dynamically allocate processing tasks based on real-time server node utilization.
Claim 97
a fingerprint scanner, an iris scanner, a retina scanner, or a blood vessel pattern scanner connected to the client terminals;
hardware security module
Claim 98
a TCP/IP hardware interface
wireless LAN module
Claim 99
Payment terminal device
Secure hardware authentication token
hardware-verified confirmation signals
Claim 100
Multiple server nodes
a hardware load balancer
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)) Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628