Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/17/2025 has been entered.
3. The following is a non-Final Office Action. In response to Examiner’s Final Action of 09/16/2024, Applicant amended Claims 1, 6, 7 and 11. Claims 2-5, 8-10 and 12-15 are as originally presented.
Claims 1-15 are pending in the current application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant’s amendments and arguments are acknowledged.
5. Claim Interpretation added in light of Applicant's amendments.
6. The prior 35 USC §101 rejection maintained despite Applicant’s amendments and arguments.
Claim interpretation
7. Independent Claim 1 includes the limitation: "wherein the notification scheduler defers transmission of the notifications to reduce redundant message updates and improve communication bandwidth efficiency" at line 24; Independent Claim 6 includes the limitation: “wherein the notification scheduler defers transmission of the notifications until completion of reallocation operations to minimize redundant device updates and reduce communication bandwidth consumption” at line 29; dependent Claim 7 includes the limitation: “wherein the notification scheduler synchronizes the delivery of notifications to maintain data consistency among the terminal devices and the electronic bulletin board while reducing redundant message traffic” at line 16; and Independent Claim 11 includes the limitation: “wherein the notification scheduler defers transmission of the notifications to reduce redundant message updates and optimize network bandwidth usage between the host device and multiple terminal devices” at line 23. Examiner is interpreting these limitations to be inherent to the deferment of notification transmission so that multiple updates do not have to be sent in case of changes prior to a final confirmation of a reservation (see paragraphs 30-34 of the Specification).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, although they are drawn to statutory categories of system (machine) or method (process), they are also directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
10. At Step 2A Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis, Claim 11 recites A method, comprising: .. receiving .. first reservation information including a reservation date, a reservation time, and a number of people; allocating .. a first rental space based on the reservation date, the reservation time, and the number of people in response to execution of a .. allocation algorithm that compares occupancy capacities of available rental spaces .. without sending a notification identifying the first rental space .. before a period during which the first reservation information can be changed elapses; receiving .. updated reservation information including an updated reservation date, an updated reservation time, or an updated number of people; allocating .. a second rental space different from the first rental space based on the updated reservation date, the updated reservation time, or the updated number of people using the .. allocation algorithm without sending a notification identifying the second rental space .. before a period during which the updated reservation information can be changed elapses; and after elapse of the period during which the updated reservation information can be changed, .. sending a first notification .. identifying a building comprising the first rental space and the second rental space without identifying the second rental space, and sending a second notification identifying the second rental space to an .. bulletin board at the building, which is an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), because reserving rental space is a business process for commercial interactions and business relations; it is also an abstract idea of Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), because allocating a second rental space different from a first rental space based on updated reservation data is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, can be performed in the mind, since it involves evaluation, judgement or observation. Claims 1 and 6 recite a similar abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis, the judicial exception (abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application because the Claims, including additional elements such as a host device including one or more processors and memory, a first terminal device via a network interface, by an allocation controller, computerized, stored in a reservation database, controlling, by a notification scheduler, timed transmission of notifications through separate communication channels, electronic, wherein the notification scheduler defers transmission of the notifications to reduce redundant message updates and optimize network bandwidth usage between the host device and multiple terminal devices, a host device including one or more processors and memory storing one or more programs to be executed by the one or more processors, a first terminal device, a second terminal device, wherein the notification scheduler defers transmission of the notifications to reduce redundant message updates and improve communication bandwidth efficiency, by a reallocation controller, through execution of an automated comparison process that dynamically exchanges room assignments among multiple pending reservations, wherein the notification scheduler defers transmission of the notifications until completion of reallocation operations to minimize redundant device updates and reduce communication bandwidth consumption, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B of the analysis, the independent Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by Figure 1 of the Drawings and paragraphs 3, 22, 25 and 27 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant claims, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
At Step 2A Prong One, dependent Claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-15 incorporate (and therefore recite) the abstract idea noted in the independent claims and further recite extensions of that abstract idea.
At Step 2A Prong Two, dependent Claims 2-5, 8-10 and 12-15 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited in the independent claims from which they depend, and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception (abstract idea) into a practical application for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2A Prong Two for the independent Claims.
At Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis for dependent Claim 7, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the Claim, including additional elements such as those listed above for the respective independent Claim and controlling, by the notification scheduler, coordinated transmission of multiple notifications through separate communication channels, wherein the notification scheduler synchronizes the delivery of notifications to maintain data consistency among the terminal devices and the electronic bulletin board while reducing redundant message traffic, individually, and in combination, when viewed as a whole, are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, and the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as in the instant claims, is not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(h); adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as in the instant claims, is also not indicative of integration into a practical application - see MPEP 2106.05(f). The Claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
At Step 2B, dependent Claims 2-5, 8-10 and 12-15 do not include any additional elements beyond those recited in the independent claims from which they depend, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as stated above at Step 2B for the independent Claims.
At Step 2B, dependent Claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea), because these additional elements such as those listed above at Step 2A Prong Two for Claim 7, individually or in combination, do not recite anything that is beyond conventional and routine use of computers (as evidenced by Figure 1 of the Drawings and paragraphs 3, 22, 25 and 27 of the Specification in the instant Application and court decisions such as buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) discussed at 2106.05(d) of the MPEP), do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, nor do they apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as in the instant Claim, is not indicative of an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Therefore, Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-eligible subject matter. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573__ U.S. 2014.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not found persuasive with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, which has therefore been maintained.
12. Applicant argues (at pp. 8-9) that, at Step 2A Prong Two of the subject matter eligibility analysis, the claims as a whole integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because "the claimed system and method are implemented through specific computer components and control logic that improve the functioning of reservation management technology .. the amended claims recite a host device with defined functional modules that perform computer-implemented operations .. Specifically, the amended claims recite a host device with defined functional modules that perform computer-implemented operations".
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained in detail at paragraph 10 above in this office action, the additional (computer) elements are merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The " control logic .. with defined functional modules" is part of the abstract idea itself: the novelty in the claim language (as indicated by the prior withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection) lies within the abstract idea which incorporates certain algorithms. However, novelty does not necessarily equate with patent-eligibility, as pointed out by the Court in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“According to Ultramercial, abstract ideas remain patent-eligible under § 101 as long as they are new ideas, not previously well known, and not routine activity. ... We do not agree with Ultramercial that the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction into something concrete.").
As noted, for example, at MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Marianko et al. (US Patent Publication US 20160180259 A1) describes a method and system for automatically identifying and reserving a meeting room that is associated with a maximum capacity number.
Clark et al. (US Patent Publication US 20210027208 A1) describes a method and system for scheduling of a conference room and showing, on a display outside the conference room, availability of the conference room.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARJIT S BAINS whose telephone number is (571)270-0317. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Wu Rutao can be reached on (571)272-6045. 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.
/SARJIT S BAINS/Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623