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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 18, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4-9, 12-17, and 20 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 9 were amended and claims 17 and 20 were canceled in the reply filed November 18, 2025. Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-16 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
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 claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. "As described in the specification, the reservation manager executes these operations to determine extension feasibility and to update the reservation table in a way that automatically adjusts end-of-use procedures, including accessory control, presence detection, and recording behavior. By requiring the system to recalculate and rewrite time boundaries in memory, and to propagate those updated boundaries to subsequent device-control sequences, the claim improves how the reservation system itself manages dynamic time windows, rather than implementing a mental process or an organizational policy on a general-purpose computer." Remarks, 8. Managing dynamic time windows of a person using a rented room fits into the identified categories of abstract ideas. "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). The only additional elements described here are a generic device with a memory and accessory control, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the reasons set forth in the rejection.
"This limitation requires processing sensor telemetry, such as motion, infrared, image, or audio signals, to derive a presence timeline. Such operations are rooted in hardware-based detection and cannot be performed as a mental process." Remarks, 9. There is no reason why a human could not mentally observe and evaluate sensor data (e.g., camera images) and determine whether or not a person is still using a room. Moreover, these sensors are only used for pre-solution data gathering (i.e., determining whether or not the person is still using the room and needs to have their time extended, which is a purely abstract purpose).
"As explained in the specification, these operations include activating alarms or display notifications, initiating recording operations, and controlling powered devices such as lighting or climate systems. This coordinated, closed-loop interaction between the host device and the accessory devices anchors the claim in a concrete technological implementation." Remarks, 9. As a threshold matter, the independent claims do not recite these limitations. Moreover, it is not explained why broadly controlling these devices (i.e., turning them on or off, a generic ability) improves any technological element. Although Applicant also argues that the "interactions are not ancillary post-solution activity" (Remarks, 9), no explanation is provided. The invention is principally concerned with dynamic time window control of the person's room use rather than improvements to accessory device control as the only abilities implicated are turning them on or off. The "focus" (see Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and "basic thrust" (see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, 839 F.3d 1138, 1150 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) of the invention is not on improved accessory device control but rather an improved methodology for extending time window usage of room reservations. 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 disclosure does not contain antecedent basis for the claim term "electronically."
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; 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; 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.
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).
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 "electronically"), 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
All claims are either identical to or patentably indistinct from claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 on 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