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 .
Priority
For the purpose of prior art consideration, the effective filing date of the instant application is based on the application filed in Japan on July 18th, 2019. However, priority to this date is not perfected until an English translation of the certified copy of the instant application is filed.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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: “user input means” in claim 1.
Claim 1 – “[a] user input means that is connected to the management device via the communication line and receives information input from the user to the management device” See MPEP 2181. Underlined is the generic placeholder used by the claim and bolded is the functional language. The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the claim. Therefore, 112(f) is invoked.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Whether a Claim is to a Statutory Category
In the instant case, claims 1-4 recite a system/machine that is performing a series of functions. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention of a machine. Step 1 is satisfied.
Step2A – Prong 1: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception
Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include an enumerated “abstract idea”:
A rental space inventory management system that sets a usage time and rents a space to a user, comprising:
a management device that is connected to a communication line to manage information;
a user input means that is connected to the management device via the communication line and receives information input from the user to the management device; and
an inventory management means that is connected to the management device via the communication line and manages an inventory of goods provided to the user who uses the space, the inventory management means comprising one or more sensors configured to measure an inventory of the goods and to transmit, via the communication line, sensor data indicative of a variation of the inventory of the goods, wherein
the management device comprises:
a reservation manager that manages reservation information on the user who uses the space received via the user input means, including a reservation date and a reservation time;
a goods information obtainer that obtains the variation of the inventory of the goods after an end of use of the space is confirmed from the inventory management means; and
a goods billing part that charges a consideration according to the variation of the inventory of the goods to the user who uses the space on the basis of the reservation information and the goods information that was obtained after the end of use of the space.
[Emphasis added to show the abstract idea being executed by additional elements that do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea]
This system claim is grouped within the "certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test because the claims involve a series of steps for sales activities of renting a space to a user and charging a consideration according to the variation of the inventory of the goods, which is a process that is encompassed by the abstract idea of commercial or legal interactions. See e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, claim 1 is found to recite abstract idea(s).
Step2A – Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements that Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of the claims such management device, communication line, user input means, inventory management means, sensors, reservation manager, goods information obtainer and goods billing part merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the management device, communication line, user input means, inventory management means, sensors, reservation manager, goods information obtainer and goods billing part perform the steps or functions of sales activities of renting a space to a user and charging a consideration according to the variation of the inventory of the goods. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer (or technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such as management device, communication line, user input means, inventory management means, sensors, reservation manager, goods information obtainer and goods billing part) performing functions of managing, receiving, measuring, transmitting, obtaining and charging that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step2B: Does the Claim Amount to Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the additional elements of management device, communication line, user input means, inventory management means, sensors, reservation manager, goods information obtainer and goods billing part being used to perform the steps of managing, receiving, measuring, transmitting, obtaining and charging amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of sales activities of renting a space to a user and charging a consideration according to the variation of the inventory of the goods. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, management device, communication line, user input means, inventory management means, sensors, reservation manager, goods information obtainer and goods billing part performs the steps or functions of commercial or legal interactions through sales activities of renting a space to a user and charging a consideration according to the variation of the inventory of the goods. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of commercial or legal interactions through sales activities of renting a space to a user and charging a consideration according to the variation of the inventory of the goods because said combination of elements remains disclosed at a high level of generality. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(l)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions of sales activities through renting a space to a user and charging a consideration according to the variation of the inventory of the goods. Dependent claim 2 does not include additional elements to perform the respective functions of obtaining, receiving and disclosing beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality like an inventory information obtainer, inventory management means, management device and inventory information discloser as well as the elements disclosed in independent claim 1 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claim 2 is also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of this claim on ineligible independent claim 1 also renders dependent claim 2 as not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions of sales activities through renting a space to a user and charging a consideration according to the variation of the inventory of the goods. Dependent claim 3 does not include additional elements to perform the respective functions of obtaining, receiving, calculating and disclosing beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality like an inventory information obtainer, inventory management means, management device, prediction information calculator and prediction information discloser as well as the elements disclosed in independent claim 1 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claim 3 is also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of this claim on ineligible independent claim 1 also renders dependent claim 3 as not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 4 further describes the abstract idea of commercial interactions of sales activities through renting a space to a user and charging a consideration according to the variation of the inventory of the goods. Dependent claim 4 does not include additional elements to perform the respective functions of managing, obtaining, charging and switching beyond technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality like a shared inventory management means, management device, identification code manager, shared goods information obtainer and shared goods billing part as well as the elements disclosed in independent claim 1 that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claim 4 is also not patent eligible. Further, the dependency of this claim on ineligible independent claim 1 also renders dependent claim 4 as not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuchi (US 2020/0117326 A1) in view of Bashkin (US 2018/0091782 A1) and Vivadelli et al. (US 2008/0109289 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tokuchi teaches:
A rental space inventory management system that sets a usage time and rents a space to a user, comprising (See Tokuchi ¶ [0398] – a system for reserving space in a rental room for a set time period):
a management device that is connected to a communication line to manage information (See Tokuchi ¶ [0077-0078] – a server or multiple servers managing data related to reservations [of rooms], entrance and exit [of rooms], billing a charge for use and member registration through connection via the internet);
a user input means that is connected to the management device via the communication line and receives information input from the user to the management device (See Tokuchi ¶ [0081-0083] – a user smartphone communicating at least electronic key information to the management server via wireless internet communication); and
an inventory management means that is connected to the management device via the communication line and manages an inventory of goods provided to the user who uses the space, the inventory management means comprising one or more sensors configured to measure … and to transmit, via the communication line, …, wherein the management device comprises (See Tokuchi ¶ [0089] - the space management server collects information from various apparatuses arranged inside or outside the space. Various apparatuses include a motion sensor, a monitoring camera, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, an illuminance sensor, and the like, [0130] – a reservation management server obtaining relevant information for a reservation, [0160] -said relevant information comprising an inventory of items available for use during a reservation period and Fig. 1 – the servers, user terminal [smartphone] and space [room] are all connected via a cloud network):
a reservation manager that manages reservation information on the user who uses the space received via the user input means, including a reservation date and a reservation time (See Tokuchi ¶ [0130] – a reservation management server maintaining reservation information based on user inputs and [0145] – reservation date and time);
a goods information obtainer that obtains the variation of the inventory of the goods … from the inventory management means (See Tokuchi ¶ [0263-0264] – managing paper [sheets] usage in a multi-function peripheral device by recognizing the number of sheets used compared to the number of sheets already included with a reservation); and
a goods billing part that charges a consideration according to the variation of the inventory of the goods to the user who uses the space on the basis of the reservation information and the goods information … (See Tokuchi ¶ [0263-0264] – managing paper [sheets] usage in a multi-function peripheral device by recognizing the number of sheets used compared to the number of sheets already included with a reservation, stopping supply of said sheets when the reserved number of sheets is consumed and resuming supply of sheets when a new reservation [payment] for said sheets is confirmed).
While Tokuchi teaches a reserved space monitoring system that uses sensors to measure conditions of said reserved space and allows access to an inventory of products for use by a user of the reserved space (Tokuchi ¶ [0089], [0264]), Tokuchi does not explicitly teach that said sensors measure an inventory of the goods or that sensor data is indicative of a variation of the inventory of the goods. This is taught by Bashkin (See Bashkin ¶ [0052-0053] – In order to more accurately track inventory present, added, or removed [variation of inventory of goods], inventory can be marked in one or more ways facilitating accurate identification. Accurate identification can include a multi-factor test applied based on activity related to the container (e.g., weight on scale reduced or increased, motion sensed, and others)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the space reservation and inventory of products usage monitoring system of Tokuchi the use of sensors to track the use of said inventory of products as taught by Bashkin to improve enterprise efficiency by reducing inventory replenishment costs (Bashkin ¶ [0088]), thereby increasing the efficiency of the reserved space monitoring system of Tokuchi.
While Tokuchi teaches a reserved space monitoring system that uses sensors to measure conditions of said reserved space, allows access to an inventory of products for use by a user of the reserved space and manages billing based on reservation information (Tokuchi ¶ [0089], [0091] and [0264]), Tokuchi does not explicitly teach obtaining information after an end of use of the space is confirmed or that information was obtained after the end of use of the space. This is taught by Vivadelli (See Vivadelli ¶ [0110] – Upon checking out of a reservation, the user is informing the system that he or she is relinquishing possession of a workspace… The system will also track time used for billing purposes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the space reservation and inventory of products usage monitoring and billing system of Tokuchi the use of billing procedures at the end of use of the reserved space as taught by Vivadelli to provide significantly enhanced data accuracy regarding use of space, which improves system effectiveness and affects individual behavior to produce even greater data accuracy and improved control and management of resources (Vivadelli ¶ [0088]), thereby increasing the accuracy and efficiency of the reserved space monitoring system of Tokuchi.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Tokuchi teaches:
The rental space inventory management system according to claim 1, wherein the management device comprises:
an inventory information obtainer that obtains inventory information on a current goods inventory from the inventory management means, when receiving the information input to the management device by the user input means (See Tokuchi ¶ [0135 and 0138] – the reservation information update control unit updates inventory information of available objects based on user input for said reservation configuration); and
an inventory information discloser that discloses the inventory information obtained by the inventory information obtainer to the user (See Tokuchi ¶ [0223-0225] – the system recognizing an item [multifunction peripheral] is not available because the reserved quantity exceeds a limit).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Tokuchi teaches:
The rental space inventory management system according to claim 1, wherein the management device comprises:
an inventory information obtainer that obtains inventory information on a current goods inventory from the inventory management means, when receiving the information input to the management device by the user input means (See Tokuchi ¶ [0135 and 0138] – the reservation information update control unit updates inventory information of available objects based on user input for said reservation configuration and [0223-0225] – the system recognizing an item [multifunction peripheral] is not available because the reserved quantity exceeds a limit);
a prediction information calculator that calculates prediction information predicting the inventory of the goods at the reservation date and time when using the space received via the user input means on the basis of the inventory information obtained by the inventory information obtainer (For the purpose of examination, the limitation prediction or predicting is interpreted as a check on availability of a certain item at the reservation date and time, as there is no other use or definition of said prediction or predicting in the specification of the instant application. Therefore, see Tokuchi ¶ [0200-0207] – checking availability of objects for reservation based on the date and time of said reservation as well as the conditions of the space being reserved); and
a prediction information discloser that discloses the prediction information calculated by the prediction information calculator to the user (See Tokuchi ¶ [0217-0222] and Fig. 16 – displaying to a user which objects [multifunction peripherals] are available at the time of a room reservation or if said objects [multifunction peripherals] are temporarily unavailable).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Tokuchi teaches:
The rental space inventory management system according to claim 1, comprising:
a shared inventory management means that is disposed in a shared space provided side by side with a plurality of spaces and manages an inventory of shared goods provided to the user, wherein the management device comprises (See Tokuchi ¶ [0113] – the space maybe a large single room or split into a plurality of spaces with connecting walls that may be used [shared] by a large number of people and [0247-0252] – shows management of a plurality of the same type of inventory object for the same [shared] reserved space):
an identification code manager that manages identification code information related to identification codes individually set for the spaces (See Tokuchi ¶ [0280] and Fig. 28 – shows a plurality of spaces with unique room ID numbers);
a shared goods information obtainer that obtains shared goods information on the variation of the inventory of the shared goods from the shared inventory management means (See Tokuchi ¶ [0113] – the space maybe a large single room or split into a plurality of spaces with connecting walls that may be used [shared] by a large number of people and [0283-0287] and Fig. 30 – shows movement of a multifunction peripheral device between rooms on a shared reservation); and
a shared goods billing part that charges the consideration according to the variation of the inventory of the shared goods to the user who uses the space on the basis of the reservation information, the identification code information, and the shared goods information (See Tokuchi ¶ [0113] – the space maybe a large single room or split into a plurality of spaces with connecting walls that may be used [shared] by a large number of people and [0283-0287] and Fig. 30 – shows movement of a multifunction peripheral device between rooms [with unique ID numbers] on a shared reservation, wherein the charge [billing] for said peripheral follows the movement of said peripheral), and
the shared inventory management means switches between an available state in which the shared goods are available to the user when the identification code is received and an unavailable state in which the shared goods are unavailable to the user when the identification code is not received (See Tokuchi ¶ [0113] – the space maybe a large single room or split into a plurality of spaces with connecting walls that may be used [shared] by a large number of people, [0201-0202] – the room ID number is required to determine availability of objects for said room and [0283-0287] and Fig. 30 – shows movement of a multifunction peripheral device from a first room to a second room [with unique ID numbers] on a shared reservation, wherein the peripheral device is only available to the room ID designated at the time a reservation is completed).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
The amendments to independent claim 1 do not improve patent eligibility of the claimed invention of the instant application and the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in maintained.
Contrary to the applicant’s assertion that amended independent claim 1 establishes a practical application with concrete technical effects by ensuring that consumption data is bound to the correct reservation in time, preventing errors that would arise if inventory were checked too early or outside the proper context, said amendments leave the methods of said claims as executed by technical elements disclosed at a high level of generality such that said methods are not more than merely applying a computer to perform the functions required by said methods, which does not show integration into a practical application nor does it show significantly more than the abstract ideas discussed above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This high level of generality leaves any improvement shown by the amended claims of the instant application as to the abstract idea itself, not the underlying technology. Any improvement of a claimed invention must be clearly reflected by said claims. The specification of an instant application is not read into the claims during examination.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102:
Considering the applicant’s arguments and the amendments to independent claim 1, the claims as they are currently limited overcome the Tokuchi prior art reference and the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is withdrawn. Any arguments solely against Tokuchi are herein rendered moot. However, the invention of the instant application remains unpatentable because it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate features from Bashkin and Vivadelli in the invention of Tokuchi as described above in the current rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The applicant is generally reminded that prior art must be considered in its entirety (MPEP 2141.02 (VI)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MATTHEW S WERONSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-5802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Fahd A. Obeid can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/MATTHEW S WERONSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627