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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 2/17/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 8-11 have been added.
Claims 1-6 and 8-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 analysis have been considered and are unpersuasive.
As a preliminary matter, Applicant asserts in the present remarks that “[s]upport [for Claim 1 as amended and new Claims 8-11] can be found in the original disclosure; no new matter has been added.” This is untrue, both for various present amendments to Claim 1 (and as such, all other claims by dependency) and for new Claims 8-10. This includes the content argued against in the present 103 Remarks, ie: “a spare time obtainer that (i) compares a reservation end time of a first reservation with a reservation start time of a subsequent reservation stored in the reservation information, and (ii) determines, as spare time, a temporal interval between the reservation end time and the reservation start time during which no reservation is scheduled.” This results in the 112(a) rejections below. While the present arguments are addressed based on the content of the claims as presently drafted, it should be understood that this content (and other new matter in Claims 8-10) is required to be removed from the claims in a future amendment to avoid these 112(a) issues.
Applicant argues that “Chan does not disclose comparing a reservation end time to a subsequent reservation start time and computing a gap between those stored reservation entries as spare time,” and further that “McMillin likewise does not cure this deficiency.” While Examiner agrees that Chan in isolation does not fully disclose this functionality as claimed, McMillin in fact does cure this deficiency. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion that “the relevant inquiry is whether sufficient time exists between now and departure; it is not a computation of a defined gap between two scheduled use records maintained in reservation information” (Examiner’s emphasis), McMillin in fact does determine the sufficiency of time not based on “between now and departure,” but rather between a time at which a plane lands at an airport (ie: an end time of a first reservation) and the time at which the plane is scheduled to depart on a subsequently scheduled flight (ie: a start time of a subsequent reservation). See, e.g., Paragraphs 0055-0058 and Fig. 10a (though numerous other passages are equally sufficient for this purpose), which makes clear that the system receives notification of the need for maintenance while the plane is still in the air (ie: before the time of landing at the airport), and thus the determination of sufficiency of time would be understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing as being from the time of landing to the time of departure, as ground-based maintenance could not have access to the plane “now” as asserted by applicant.
Applicant’s arguments regarding new Claims 8-11 are moot in view of the updated rejections below. Similar to Claim 1 as discussed above, Applicant should be aware of the 112(a) new matter rejections regarding Claims 8-10, and the necessity to remove the offending language in a future amendment to avoid these issues.
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:
In Claim 1, “a detection means that detects…”
In Claim 1, “a reservation manager that manages…”
In Claim 1, “a device manager that manages…”
In Claim 1, “a spare time obtainer that obtains…”
In Claim 1, “a state determiner that determines…”
In Claim 1, “a management mode switcher that switches…”
In Claim 2, “a maintenance determiner that determines…”
In Claim 3, “a security mode switcher that switches…”
In Claim 4, “an abnormality detector that detects…”
In Claim 4, “an abnormality notifier that notifies…”
In Claim 6, “a command transmitter that transmits…”
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. Particularly, the above-listed terms are interpreted in light of Paragraphs 0025-0032 and Figs. 1-2.
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 § 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 1-6 and 8-11 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.
Claim 1 contains the following limitations: “a spare time obtainer that (i) compares a reservation end time of a first reservation with a reservation start time of a subsequent reservation stored in the reservation information, and (ii) determines, as spare time, a temporal interval between the reservation end time and the reservation start time during which no reservation is scheduled” and “a state determiner that determines (i) that the space is in the spare time on the basis of the determined temporal interval.” These limitations recite new matter, and thus fail to meet the written description requirements of 112(a). While the original disclosure does not explicitly recite the concepts of reservation start and end times, various passages regarding functionality to be performed “before the reservation date and time of the next user” (e.g., Paragraphs 0007, 0009, 0011, and 0041-0043) would be understood to imply the concept of a start time of a reservation. Similarly, the concepts of reservation start and end times would readily be understood to be implied simply by way of disclosing room (e.g., in a hotel or office, as in Paragraph 0003) reservations, as this is how such room reservations are customarily and ubiquitously performed: by way of set start and end times (hence why the amended limitation “a reservation manager that manages reservation information including reservation start times and reservation end times of users who use the space” is not listed above). However, language specifically supporting the determination of a “temporal interval” between the end time of a first reservation and a start time of a subsequent limitation is nowhere to be found in the original disclosure, nor is the use of such a temporal interval as spare time. Rather, the description of the determination of spare time is described in an extremely vague manner throughout the original disclosure (see, e.g., 0034, 0039, and 0042), in greatest detail described as being determined “on the basis of the reservation information” (see, e.g., Paragraphs 0006 and 0029). This is significantly broader than the particular embodiment now claimed, with the claims further developing this concept beyond what is set forth in the original disclosure. Additionally, the original disclosure does not appear to explicitly disclose anywhere therein precisely when the claimed process is to take place. Rather, the entirety of the description of the determination of spare time is drafted in the present tense (or “now” as argued in the present 103 remarks in relation to the McMillin reference). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably conclude that Applicant had possession of the above-quoted limitations at the time of filing. Based on the unsupported nature of the term "temporal interval" as defined in Claim 1, the use of this term in new Claims 8-10 renders the further limitations of those claims as new matter by extension. Claims 2-6 and 8-11 are rejected due to their dependency upon Claim 1.
Claim 8 contains the following limitation: “wherein the spare time obtainer determines the temporal interval based solely on the reservation start times and reservation end times stored in the reservation information, independent of user proximity information.” This limitation recites new matter, and thus fail to meet the written description requirements of 112(a). As explained above regarding Claim 1, the term “the temporal interval” as used in this limitation is not supported by the original disclosure (ie: as determined in Claim 1). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably conclude that Applicant had possession of the above-quoted limitation at the time of filing.
Claim 9 contains the following limitation: “wherein the spare time obtainer determines the temporal interval based solely on the reservation start times and reservation end times stored in the reservation information, independent of user proximity information.” As explained above regarding Claim 1, the term “the temporal interval” as used in this limitation is not supported by the original disclosure (ie: as determined in Claim 1). Additionally, there appears to be no basis in the original disclosure for the negative limitation "independent of user proximity information.” Examiner cannot find any disclosure which even approaches this concept, so Examiner is unable to point to a passage of the original disclosure to contrast the claim language therewith. See MPEP 2173.05(i) regarding the standards of written description support specifically for such negative limitations. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably conclude that Applicant had possession of the above-quoted limitation at the time of filing.
Claim 10 contains the following limitation: “wherein the spare time obtainer is configured to re-determine the temporal interval between the reservation end time and the reservation start time when the reservation information is updated.” As explained above regarding Claim 1, the term “the temporal interval” as used in this limitation is not supported by the original disclosure (ie: as determined in Claim 1). Additionally, the concepts of re-determining the spare time/temporal interval and the updating of reservation information, individually much less joined as claimed here, are nowhere to be found in the original disclosure. Examiner cannot find any disclosure which even approaches these concepts, so Examiner is unable to point to a passage of the original disclosure to contrast the claim language therewith. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably conclude that Applicant had possession of the above-quoted limitation at the time of filing.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al (PGPub 20150323943) (hereafter, “Chan”) in view of McMillin et al (PGPub 20090150022) (hereafter, “McMillin”).
Regarding Claim 1, Chan discloses:
a management server that manages the rental space (Abstract; ¶ 0013, 0030; Fig. 1; application server);
a maintenance device that performs maintenance of the space (¶ 0052; Fig. 1; control station controls HVAC system of environmental attribute means);
a detection means that detects the presence or absence of a moving body in the space (¶ 0065; Fig. 1; Claims 1, 4; occupancy attribute means, such as an infrared sensor or CMOS sensor);
wherein the management server comprises: a reservation manager that manages reservation information including reservation start times and reservation end times of users who use the space (¶ 0063; Fig. 7A; application server receives a message from a separate, communicatively connected system indicating the status of each hotel room as "not rented," "unoccupied," etc.; one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would understand that the room status indicators of Fig. 7A (particularly as "not rented") varies with date as well as time; Fig. 7A illustrates a time-based status for each room, indicating in part whether the room is rented; this, in conjunction with a basic understanding of how room rental works, would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as indicating reservation start times and end times);
a device manager that manages information on the maintenance device and the detection means (Chan: ¶ 0010, 0043, 0052, 0070; Fig. 1; Claim 1; Claims 5, 9; control station sends obtained attributes to the application server, and controls connected attribute station and external devices; control station controls HVAC system of environmental attribute means);
a state determiner that determines (i) that the space is in the spare time on the basis of the determined temporal interval (Abstract; ¶ 0009, 0026, 0030, 0036-0038, 0063; Fig. 7A; calculates a lead time period prior to the user arriving at a monitored space; room status may be, e.g., "20 minutes" or "20 minutes +" of spare time; as per Fig. 7A, lead times are determined or not determined based in part on the reservation status of each room);
(ii) that the space is in a non-use state with no moving body in the space on the basis of a detection result of the detection means(¶ 0013, 0051, 0066-0067, 0070; Fig. 1; Claim 1; application server determines if the rented room is unoccupied on basis of information received from at least one other communicatively coupled system (e.g., the occupancy attribute means); application server determines that the monitored space is "unoccupied," and sends to the control station one or more signals for receipt by a plurality of devices, to change the operative mode to an "unattended state"); and
a management mode switcher that switches a management mode from a normal mode to a maintenance mode in which the maintenance device performs maintenance of the space when the state determiner determines both that the space is in the spare time and that the space is in the non-use state (Abstract; ¶ 0009, 0013, 0026, 0030, 0036-0038, 0045, 0051-0054, 0063; Figs. 5, 7A-7B; system determines that the room is unoccupied as a precondition to determining lead time, and determines lead time as a precondition of performance of maintenance; system and methods to project the user's arrival time at an unoccupied monitored space for determination of the setback temperature, the quality of heated water consumption, and scheduling of service provisions; the application server estimates the time duration of each rented room being in an unoccupied status and composes a schedule of housekeeping service in priority; HVAC system is controlled to maintain rented space air temperature based on the unoccupied status of the rented space).
Chan additionally discloses a spare time obtainer that (i) compares a time of unoccupancy with a reservation start time of a subsequent reservation stored in the reservation information, and (ii) determines, as spare time, a temporal interval between the reservation end time and the time of unoccupancy during which no reservation is scheduled (Abstract; ¶ 0009, 0026, 0030, 0036-0038, 0051, 0062-0072; Figs. 7A-7B; calculates a lead time period prior to the user arriving at a monitored space; as per Fig. 7A, lead times are determined or not determined based in part on the reservation status of each room). Chan does not explicitly disclose but McMillin does disclose wherein the time of unoccupancy is a reservation end time of a first reservation (¶ 0031, 0040-0041, 0055-0058, 0076-0077, 0079; Figs. 10a-16b; the pilot on the aircraft is made aware of a fault in flight by an advisory that may be displayed by an alerting system of the aircraft; the pilot enters the fault data and generates the PIREP using the fault report generator; upon storing the PRIEP, the PRIEP is transmitted to the ground via the network; the flight schedule evaluator can evaluate the current flight schedule and determine whether maintenance can be performed; the maintenance controller reviews the current flight schedule, and if there is sufficient time to complete the work and the resources are available at the next location, the work order is generated; after reviewing the flight details, it is determined that there is sufficient time at the next destination to perform the maintenance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the space maintenance determination functionality of McMillin with the rental space management system of Chan because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of McMillin are applicable to the base device (Chan), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Regarding Claim 8, Chan in view of McMillin discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Chan does not explicitly disclose but McMillin does disclose wherein the management server stores a time required to perform maintenance of the space, and the management mode switcher switches to the maintenance mode only when the temporal interval determined as the spare time exceeds the stored time required for maintenance (¶ 0040-0041, 0053, 0057; Figs. 9, 10a-16b; resources stored in the resource database; based on inputs (including schedule of the reserved resource), predicts the available time for performing the maintenance on the aircraft; determines whether there is sufficient time to perform work; if there is sufficient time to complete the work, the work order is generated; to determine if there is sufficient time to complete the work, the time to complete the work must necessarily be stored in memory). Chan additionally discloses wherein the maintenance is performed by the maintenance device (Abstract; ¶ 0009, 0013, 0045, 0051-0054, 0063; system and methods to project the user's arrival time at an unoccupied monitored space for determination of the setback temperature, the quality of heated water consumption, and scheduling of service provisions; the application server estimates the time duration of each rented room being in an unoccupied status and composes a schedule of housekeeping service in priority; HVAC system is controlled to maintain rented space air temperature based on the unoccupied status of the rented space).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Chan in view of McMillin discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Chan does not explicitly disclose but McMillin does disclose wherein the spare time obtainer determines the temporal interval based solely on the reservation start times and reservation end times stored in the reservation information, independent of user proximity information (¶ 0031, 0040-0041, 0055-0058, 0076-0077, 0079; Figs. 10a-16b; the pilot on the aircraft is made aware of a fault in flight by an advisory that may be displayed by an alerting system of the aircraft; the pilot enters the fault data and generates the PIREP using the fault report generator; upon storing the PRIEP, the PRIEP is transmitted to the ground via the network; the flight schedule evaluator can evaluate the current flight schedule and determine whether maintenance can be performed; the maintenance controller reviews the current flight schedule, and if there is sufficient time to complete the work and the resources are available at the next location, the work order is generated; after reviewing the flight details, it is determined that there is sufficient time at the next destination to perform the maintenance).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of McMillin and Jacobs et al (US 7587327) (hereafter, “Jacobs”).
Regarding Claim 2, Chan in view of McMillin discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Chan does not explicitly disclose but McMillin does disclose wherein the device manager manages a time required to perform maintenance by the maintenance device (¶ 0043, 0052, 0057; Figs. 6, 10a-16b; resources stored in the resource database; review time & resources; determines whether there is sufficient time to perform work).
Chan does not explicitly disclose but McMillin does disclose the management server includes a maintenance determiner that determines whether the maintenance can be performed on the basis of the spare time obtained by the spare time obtainer and the time required to perform maintenance, when the management mode switcher switches the management mode to the maintenance mode (¶ 0040-0041, 0053, 0057; Figs. 9, 10a-16b; resources stored in the resource database; based on inputs (including schedule of the reserved resource), predicts the available time for performing the maintenance on the aircraft; determines whether there is sufficient time to perform work). Chan additionally discloses wherein the maintenance is performed by the maintenance device (Abstract; ¶ 0009, 0013, 0045, 0051-0054, 0063; system and methods to project the user's arrival time at an unoccupied monitored space for determination of the setback temperature, the quality of heated water consumption, and scheduling of service provisions; the application server estimates the time duration of each rented room being in an unoccupied status and composes a schedule of housekeeping service in priority; HVAC system is controlled to maintain rented space air temperature based on the unoccupied status of the rented space).
Chan does not explicitly disclose but McMillin does disclose all of the maintenance is performed in accordance with a determination by the maintenance determiner that the time required is less than the spare time (¶ 0057; if there is sufficient time to complete the work, the work order is generated). Chan additionally discloses the device manager is configured to cause the maintenance device to perform maintenance (Abstract; ¶ 0009, 0013, 0045, 0051-0054, 0063; system and methods to project the user's arrival time at an unoccupied monitored space for determination of the setback temperature, the quality of heated water consumption, and scheduling of service provisions; the application server estimates the time duration of each rented room being in an unoccupied status and composes a schedule of housekeeping service in priority; HVAC system is controlled to maintain rented space air temperature based on the unoccupied status of the rented space).
Chan and McMillin do not explicitly disclose but Jacobs does disclose the device manager is configured to cause the maintenance device to perform only part of the maintenance in accordance with a determination by the maintenance determiner that the time required is longer than the spare time (Abstract; Column 2, lines 19-42; Column 3, lines 8-24; Column 5, lines 17-52; Column 7, lines 6-20; Fig. 2; splittable order is a work order that may be split over several days in performing the requested service even if, for example, the total job duration is less than the number of service hours available in a given day; splittable orders are assigned a job duration required to complete the order and a split time that is less than the job duration; an appointment window on a first day during which a portion of the service to complete the work order may be scheduled is determined; at least one appointment window on a subsequent day or days during which the remainder of the service to complete the work order may be scheduled is then determined; the splittable work order is scheduled by assigning the work order to the determined appointment windows on the first day and subsequent day or days).
The rationale to combine Chan and McMillin remains the same as for Claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would further have been motivated to include the job scheduling and splitting functionality of Jacobs with the rental space management system of Chan and McMillin to improve the efficiency of utilized service resources/allow for earlier completion of an entire job (see at least the Abstract and Column 1, lines 36-52; and Column 2, lines 19-42 of Jacobs).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of McMillin and Adams (PGPub 20060267780) (hereafter, “Adams”).
Regarding Claim 3, Chan in view of McMillin discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Chan does not explicitly disclose but Adams does disclose wherein the management server comprises a security mode switcher that switches a security mode from a normal mode to a secure mode for guarding the space, when the space is in the non-use state (¶ 0027-0035, 0155-0160; Table T9; suppression sensor is activated to prevent false alarms from the motion detection sensors while a space is occupied). Chan additionally discloses wherein whether the space is in the non-use state is determined by the state determiner (¶ 0013, 0051, 0066-0067, 0070; Fig. 1; Claim1; application server determines if the rented room is unoccupied on basis of information received from at least one other communicatively coupled system (e.g., the occupancy attribute means); application server determines that the monitored space is "unoccupied," and sends to the control station one or more signals for receipt by a plurality of devices, to change the operative mode to an "unattended state").
The rationale to combine Chan and McMillin remains the same as for Claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the space monitoring and alarm functionality of Adams with the rental space management system of Chan to provide alarm-based monitoring, but avoid the alarm being set off by a person or persons moving legitimately and normally around the space (see at least Abstract and Paragraph 0248 of Adams).
Regarding Claim 4, Chan in view of McMillin and Adams discloses the limitations of Claim 3. Chan additionally discloses an abnormality detector that detects an abnormality in the space on the basis of the detection result of the detection means (¶ 0066, 0068; Claims 1, 8-9; monitors whether one or more mobile devices are within or outside the pertinent monitored space; receives signal transmissions including but not limited to the occupancy attribute from the occupancy attribute means; attempts to verify the identities of detected occupants of the monitored space). Chan does not explicitly disclose but Adams does disclose doing so in the secure mode (¶ 0027-0035, 0155-0160; Table T9; suppression sensor is activated to prevent false alarms from the motion detection sensors while a space is occupied).
Chan additionally discloses an abnormality notifier that notifies an administrator of the rental space of the abnormality in the space when the abnormality detector detects the abnormality in the space (¶ 0066, 0068; Claims 1, 8-9; monitors whether one or more mobile devices are within or outside the pertinent monitored space; receives signal transmissions including but not limited to the occupancy attribute from the occupancy attribute means; if application server fails to verify the identities of occupants in the occupied space, an alert is sent to a third party, comprising at least one of the property management, security organization, etc.).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of McMillin, Adams, and Agarwal et al (PGPub 20200250774) (hereafter, “Agarwal”).
Regarding Claim 5, Chan in view of McMillin and Adams discloses the limitations of Claim 4. Chan additionally discloses wherein the abnormality detector does not detect an operation of a particular entity as the abnormality in the space (¶ 0066, 0068; Claims 1, 8-9; monitors whether one or more mobile devices are within or outside the pertinent monitored space; receives signal transmissions including but not limited to the occupancy attribute from the occupancy attribute means; if application server fails to verify the identities of occupants in the occupied space, an alert is sent to a third party, comprising at least one of the property management, security organization, etc.). Chan and Adams do not explicitly disclose but Agarwal does disclose wherein the particular entity is the maintenance device (¶ 0214; robotic floor cleaner or sweeper can be activated).
The rationale to combine Chan, McMillin, and Adams remains the same as for Claim 3. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include the robotic space maintenance device functionality of Agarwal with the rental space management system of Chan, McMillin, and Adams because the combination merely applies a known technique to a known device/method/product ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) and MPEP 2143). The known techniques of Agarwal are applicable to the base device (Chan, McMillin, and Adams), the technical ability existed to improve the base device in the same way, and the results of the combination are predictable because the function of each piece (as well as the problems in the art which they address) are unchanged when combined.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of McMillin, Adams, and Wright et al (PGPub 20200226912, claiming priority to Provisional Applications 62/855,142 and 62/792,007) (hereafter, “Wright”).
Regarding Claim 6, Chan in view of McMillin and Adams discloses the limitations of Claim 3. Chan additionally discloses wherein the management server comprises a transmitter that transmits a communication to an external security service via a communications line (¶ 0066, 0068; Claims 1, 10-11; if application server fails to verify the identities of occupants in the occupied space, an alert is sent to a third party, comprising at least one of the property management, security organization, etc.; server establishes a schedule for service provision, and sends to a third party (e.g., security organization) said schedule). Chan and Adams do not explicitly disclose but Wright does disclose wherein the communication is a command for guarding the space; wherein the external security service is an external security system (Abstract; ¶ 0004, 0234; Figs. 3A-3B, 6A; the provider of the electronic device offers on-demand monitoring services by the facility owner/operator for use (e.g., by subscription but not necessarily with any capital investment requirements) by the controlled space tenant to monitor a given controlled unit's interior space(s) and/or asset(s); establishing subscription with end-user, such as a facility operator). Chan does not explicitly disclose but Adams does disclose doing so in the secure mode (¶ 0027-0035, 0155-0160; Table T9; suppression sensor is activated to prevent false alarms from the motion detection sensors while a space is occupied).
The rationale to combine Chan and Adams remains the same as for Claim 3. One of ordinary skill in the art would further have been motivated to include the third-party space security functionality of Wright with the rental space management system of Chan and Adams to provide simple, easy, fast, and inexpensive monitoring of a controlled space while avoiding the cost and effort of purchasing, installing, and operating a dedicated monitoring system (see at least Paragraphs 0008, 0014, 0017, and 0022 of Wright).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan in view of McMillin and Agarwal.
Regarding Claim 10, Chan in view of McMillin discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Chan additionally discloses wherein the spare time obtainer is configured to determine the temporal interval between the reservation end time and the reservation start; wherein the trigger condition is receipt of reservation information (¶ 0009, 0026, 0030, 0036-0038, 0063; Fig. 7A; calculates a lead time period prior to the user arriving at a monitored space; as per Fig. 7A, lead times are determined or not determined based in part on the reservation status of each room; application server receives a message from a separate, communicatively connected system indicating the status of each hotel room as "not rented," "unoccupied," etc.). Chan does not explicitly disclose but Agarwal does disclose wherein steps are re-determined when a trigger condition occurs (¶ 0188; Fig. 10; the process is initiated at step 210 after the receipt of a trigger along with data from a particular sensor).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 11, Chan in view of McMillin discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Chan additionally discloses wherein the state determiner is configured to disregard movement generated by operation of a particular entity when determining whether the space is in the non-use state (¶ 0066, 0068; Claims 1, 8-9; monitors whether one or more mobile devices are within or outside the pertinent monitored space; receives signal transmissions including but not limited to the occupancy attribute from the occupancy attribute means; if application server fails to verify the identities of occupants in the occupied space, an alert is sent to a third party, comprising at least one of the property management, security organization, etc.). Chan does not explicitly disclose but Agarwal does disclose wherein the particular entity is the maintenance device (¶ 0214; robotic floor cleaner or sweeper can be activated).
The rationale to combine remains the same as for Claim 5.
Discussion of Prior Art Cited but Not Applied
For additional information on the state of the art regarding the claims of the present application, please see the following documents not applied in this Office Action (all of which are prior art to the present application):
PGPub 20190049979 – “Method for the Operation of an Automatically Moving Cleaning Appliance,” Brede et al, disclosing a system for operating a robotic cleaning apparatus based on a work schedule
PGPub 20200397936 – “Systems and Methods for Internet-of-Things (IOT) Robotic Sterilization Device,” Deros et al, disclosing a system for monitoring a space, including operation of a robot to sterilize the space when contamination is detected, and incorporating a motion detector which ignores authorized occupancy (e.g., by housekeeping or administrative personnel)
Osawa et al, Analysis of robot hotel: Reconstruction of works with robots, 26th IEEE Int’l Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, disclosing techniques for utilizing robots to perform various tasks, including cleaning/maintenance, in hotels
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 MARK C CLARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8748. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-2:30pm 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/MARK C CLARE/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights