DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 2, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-16 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 9 were amended in the reply filed July 2, 2026. Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-16 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments overcome the objection to the Specification and it is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended limitations focusing on the authorization keys integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Remarks, 9-11. However, assigning unique keys for a lockable rental space that are only valid for a certain guest during a certain time period is an old and well-established business practice. See Stringam, et al., Hotel and guest room technology, Ch. 6 of Hospitality and Tourism Information Technology, University of South Florida (USF) M3 Publishing, 2021, pg. 24 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892) (the "most common lock and key card system" can include "an expiration date to coincide with the guest check-out date" and can be deactivated). See also Finamore, Let me in: a short history of hotel keys, Hotel Vogue, Apr. 28, 2026 (Reference V of the attached PTO-892) (reprogrammable expiring room keys have been in practice since the 1970s). "Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application…" MPEP 2106.04(d) II. (emphasis added). When viewed in combination, these commercial interactions do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the reasons set forth in the rejection below. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the detailed description lacks antecedent basis for the claims term "validity period."
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended independent claims recite "updating the validity period of the unique authentication key to correspond to the extended rental end time." Amended claims which introduce new elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972). The only portions of the disclosure that discuss the keys provide: "The locking device 22 can be unlocked by an authentication key such as a password or a bar code issued from the reservation site 4 to the terminal device 3 of the user, and the authentication key is randomly changed each time it is used, so that only the user who made a reservation at that time can unlock the locking device 22 by using a unique authentication key." Published Specification, ¶ 0034. "Further, when the use of the room 20 has been completed, the authentication key for unlocking the locking device 22 of the doorway 21 is disabled, and preparations are made according to the reservation information R of the next user." Published Specification, ¶ 0052. Neither of these sections support updating the validity period of the unique authentication key to correspond to the extended rental end time. While outside the context of the authentication key the disclosure supports extending the reservation time and it may have been obvious to also extend the authentication key, this is not the standard for written support. The lack of express support is not cured by the fact that one skilled in the art could have arrived at the claimed invention. In re Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1527, 1534-35, 25 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) ("a description that merely renders the invention obvious does not satisfy the [written description] requirement"). The dependent claims inherit the rejections of their respective base claims and, as such, are rejected for the same reasons.
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, 4-9, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-16, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the recited representative functions of the independent claims—including obtaining a rental start time and a rental end time for a user of a rental space, wherein the rental end time corresponds to a time, and wherein a unique authentication key is valid for unlocking a locking device of the rental space during a validity period corresponding to the rental start time and the rental end time; receiving administrator settings for the rental space, wherein the administrator settings include a predetermined threshold of time before the rental end time for the rental space; upon reaching the predetermined threshold of time before the rental end time: determining whether an extension of the rental end time for the user is possible by evaluating reservation information for the rental space stored and computing an amount of unused time between the rental end time and a subsequent rental start time for a different user; in accordance with a determination that the extension of the rental end time for the user is possible; generating an extension command instructing to notify the user that the rental end time is extendible and to solicit an application for extension; transmitting the extension command; determining whether an application for extension has been received in response to the extension command; and in accordance with a determination that an application for extension has been received in response to the extension command, updating reservation information stored to reflect an extended rental end time and extending the rental end time, and updating the validity period of the unique authentication key to correspond to the extended rental end time; upon reaching the rental end time: receiving presence information, wherein the presence information indicates that the user is present in the rental space; determining, based on the rental end time and the presence information, that the rental end time is exceeded; generating a notification command instructing to notify the user that the rental end time has been exceeded; transmitting the notification command; generating a recording command to record an image-based, audio-based, temperature based, or motion-based presence information of the rental space; transmitting the recording command; receiving presence information collected after the rental end time; measuring a length of presence associated with the image-based, audio-based, temperature-based, or motion-based presence information by determining an elapsed duration between the rental end time and a time at which the presence information indicates that the user is no longer present; determining an amount of excess time during which the rental end time is exceeded based on the length of presence; and charging the user a usage fee based on an amount of excess time during which the rental end time is exceeded; disabling the unique authentication key such that the locking device cannot be unlocked using the unique authentication key after the rental end time; and generating, for a subsequent reservation of the rental space, a different authentication key for unlocking the locking device, the different authentication key being different from the unique authentication key.
These limitations taken together qualify as a method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting and analyzing information for managing and issuing notifications regarding the time-limited rental spaces of people and charging fees when those times are exceeded (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities and following rules or instructions). Specifically with respect to the limitations involving the authorization keys, assigning unique keys for a lockable rental space that are only valid for a certain guest during a certain time period is a well-established business practice. See Stringam, et al., Hotel and guest room technology, Ch. 6 of Hospitality and Tourism Information Technology, University of South Florida (USF) M3 Publishing, 2021, pg. 24 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892) (the "most common lock and key card system" can include "an expiration date to coincide with the guest check-out date" and can be deactivated). See also Finamore, Let me in: a short history of hotel keys, Hotel Vogue, Apr. 28, 2026 (Reference V of the attached PTO-892) (reprogrammable expiring room keys have been in practice since the 1970s).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric System, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016)—analyzing records of human activity to detect suspicious behavior, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as analyzing records of human activity to detect an exceeded rental time). See also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Hawk Technology Systems, LLC v. Castle Retail, LLC, 60 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (receiving, storing, and displaying video/images held to be abstract).
These cases describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (host device, processors and memory storing programs, four generic accessory devices (one of which is "powered" and can be turned off by a processor), communication network, display device, camera or motion sensor—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea; broadly performing steps automatically), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
That the claims are being applied in to a rental space with "accessory devices" (e.g., lighting devices or air conditioners) merely sets forth a general linkage to a particular field-of-use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Moreover, the generic controlling of a generic "powered" accessory device can be viewed as extra-solution activity tangential to the invention (i.e., an insignificant application—see MPEP 2106.05(g)). See also ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (controlling a network of vehicle charging stations—including turning electric supply on and off—held to be ineligible). Similarly, with respect to the camera and motion sensor, these can also be viewed as merely being used for data gathering activities (e.g., gathering image-based, audio-based, temperature based, or motion-based presence data via the recording of people in the rental space) (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). This is also being performed for an abstract rather than technological purpose (i.e., determining if the rental customers are still using the space beyond their allotted time in order to charge an additional fee, which could also be performed by an employee of the rental space service provider via non-technical means and achieving the same result)
Aside from this the claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (host device, processors, and memory storing programs (¶¶ 0038-39), four generic accessory devices (one of which is "powered" and can be turned off by a processor) (¶¶ 0035, 61), communication network (¶ 0033), display device (¶¶ 0035, 41), camera or motion sensor (¶¶ 0035, 59, 67)—see the referenced citations of the published Specification describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims. Claims 5 and 13 add an image recording device (i.e., camera), claims 6 and 14 add a motion sensor, and claims 7-8 and 15-16 include a "powered" generic accessory device, which are all not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons as in the independent claims. Clams 7-8 and 15-16 also add a lighting device or air conditioner provided in the rental space. However, this merely further limits the field-of-use in which the abstract idea is being applied by setting forth some high-level details of the rental space. Moreover, broadly controlling these devices by turning them on or off is an insignificant extra-solution activity for the same reasons as in the independent claims.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (image recording device (i.e., camera), motion sensor, "powered" generic accessory device, lighting device or air conditioner), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and for the same reasons as addressed in the independent claims above. With respect to the lighting device or air conditioner, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components by describing them at a high level of generality devoid of any technical details regarding their operation, thus providing evidence that they are well-known (see ¶¶ 0052, 61). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights