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 RCE filed on 8/22/2025.
Claim 1 has been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 7 has been canceled.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/22/2025 has been entered.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that present amendments to Claim 1 in part undo previous claim amendments which rendered the performance of maintenance by the maintenance device optional rather than required in the claims, and thus renders the claim subject matter eligible under 101 standards. Examiner agrees; therefore, the previous 101 rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 102/103 analyses have been considered and are unpersuasive.
Applicant repeats and slightly expands arguments from the previously advanced and refuted Remarks of 6/27/2024, asserting that the determined “lead time” (determined based on a finding that the room is unoccupied, or in a “non-use state” as claimed, for example, in Step 520 of Fig. 5) of Chan reference does not properly disclose the determined “spare time” of the claims. Examiner disagrees and maintains the sufficiency of both the previously provided citations to Chan and the explanation of said citations given in response to these previous Remarks in the Non-Final Rejection of 7/22/2024, the embodiment of which reads upon this claim language Examiner yet again notes was explicitly acknowledged by Applicant in the earlier Remarks of 11/14/2023. While the present reiteration of this argument is no more persuasive now than as advanced previously, the previously provided explanation to this argument is expanded below in view of the presently modified version of this argument.
In particular, Applicant disputes the embodiment of Chan explained in the previous Office Action by stressing the language “Application server 110 analyzes the proximity log and ends the process if the rented room status is identified as ‘checked-out’” of Paragraph 0051 (discussing the aforementioned Step 520 of Fig. 5), seemingly arguing that “ends the process” in this language indicates the end of the flowchart of Fig. 5 writ large rather than the end of Step 520 in particular, which would then seemingly indicate that the subsequent determination of the lead time (e.g., in Paragraph 0053 and Step 530 of Fig. 5) is not based on the “reservation information” as claimed. Examiner disagrees.
Looking at Paragraph 0051 purely in isolation, there are two reasonable interpretations of this argued language: (1) that “ends the process” indicates the overall process of Fig. 5 (as asserted by Applicant), and (2) that “ends the process” indicates the end of Step 520, ie: that the determination of the room as occupied or unoccupied based on the noted analysis of proximity log and “information received from at least one other communicatively connected system” is complete. While both interpretations are possible, the latter more logically follows as one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize a room as unoccupied “if the rented room statis is identified as ‘checked-out’” as described in Paragraph 0051. While the reasonability of both interpretations of this language in isolation would be enough on its own to illustrate the sufficiency of Chan for this purpose, the reasonability of this language as supporting Applicant’s argument falls apart when considering this language in the context of the rest of the reference (as appropriate).
When considering Applicant’s quoted language of Paragraph 0051 in view of the reference as a whole, it becomes additionally clear that the reference considers embodiments of lead time in relation to a next reservation for a presently checked-out room, thereby making clear that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably interpret this language in the manner Applicant asserts. As noted in relation to this argument in the previous Office Action, this embodiment (wherein determinations of occupancy and lead time is based on the timing of a future reservation of an unoccupied room) is further described in relation to Paragraphs 0062-0072 and Figs. 7A-7B of Chan. The present Remarks fail to acknowledge this nor make any attempt to refute it. It additionally does not logically follow that the “process” ended in this language of Paragraph 0051 indicates the entirety of the flowchart of Fig. 5 as this goes against the stated purposes of this invention: the reduction of energy consumption/the increase of energy conservation by lowering HVAC usage in rooms which are unoccupied, and the scheduling and prioritization of housekeeping services in rooms which are unoccupied.
Lastly on this topic, Examiner notes yet another part of the explanation already set forth in the Non-Final Rejection of 7/22/2024, stating that even if Applicant’s arguments regarding this functionality were persuasive (which, to be clear, they were not previously and are not presently), the combination of Chan and McMillin certainly would disclose the argued functionality in similar fashion as cited in Claim 2 (e.g., wherein the determinations of available time and the sufficiency of such available time when scheduling maintenance for planes is based on the flight schedules for said planes, the techniques of which may certainly be applied to the room maintenance scheduling of Chan). While, as discussed above, Examiner maintains the sufficiency of Chan in isolation for this functionality, Examiner notes for completeness that the present Remarks also make no attempt to refute this previously noted combination of Chan and McMillin. This is particularly important here as McMillin is now cited for the “…times between reservation times…” language newly amended into Claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 includes the following limitation: “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, in response to a determination by the state determiner that the space is in spare time and is in the non-use state.” The switch to a maintenance mode in this language is interpreted as not necessitating the performance of maintenance of the space in light of the permissive, optional language of this limitation (ie: “can perform”). In other words, this maintenance can be performed, but the scope of Claim 1 does not require such performance. Examiner notes that this interpretation is in line with both the standards of broadest reasonable interpretation (see, e.g., MPEP 2111) and with Applicant’s stated intent for this language in the Remarks of 6/27/2024 (though Examiner further notes that this intent is not controlling).
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 § 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.
Claim 1 is 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 on reservation dates and 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);
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) whether the space is in spare time on the basis of an obtained result of the spare time obtainer (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) whether 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, in response to a determination by the state determiner that the space is in spare time and 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 obtains spare time of the space on the basis of reservation times managed by the reservation information (Abstract; ¶ 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). Chan does not explicitly disclose but McMillin does disclose wherein the spare time of the space is obtained on the basis of times between reservation times managed by the reservation information (¶ 0031, 0040-0041, 0057, 0076-0077, 0079; Figs. 10a-16b; 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.
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).
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)
Conclusion
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