DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
[2] 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 17 February 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
[3] This communication is in response to the Amendment and the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 17 February 2026. Claims 1, 21, and 22 have been amended. Claims 1-25 are pending.
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.
[4] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The revised statement of rejection presented below is necessitated by amendment and addresses the present amendments to the pending claims.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024 and further clarified in the Reminders on Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 guidance memorandum published 4 August 2025. Claim(s) 1-25 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 21, and 22 are directed to a method, a system, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 21, and 22 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of allocating office/workspace resources including analyzing resource utilization and suggesting resource allocations based on the analysis, which is reasonably considered to be method of Organizing Human Activity. In particular, the general subject matter to which the claims are directed provide resource scheduling functions of workers based on an analysis of resource utilization and anticipated needs, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely, executing commercial agreements in the form of contracts to occupy and utilize defined business resources and managing interactions among personnel to utilize the resources.
In support of Examiner’s conclusion, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to the claim limitations of representative claim 1 as presented by amendment. In particular, amended claim 1 retains:
“…identifying a plurality of resource zones within the one or more buildings, each resource zone of the plurality of resource zones comprising a plurality of resources for allocation …”, “…storing a suggested resource allocation of the plurality of resources of the plurality of resource zones for each respective time period of a plurality of time periods across a specified time range…”, “…providing the stored suggested resource allocation…for a user to confirm the suggested resource allocation and…”, “…periodically updating the stored suggested resource allocation for each respective time period of the plurality of time periods…”, “…updating the suggested resource allocation stored to the updated suggested resource allocation for each respective time period of the plurality of time periods in response to determining that the updated expected resource utilization is within the specified value range… generating a training data set…for the plurality of time periods to the updated expected resource utilization for the plurality of time periods…”
Considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 1 as recognized from the above limitations present a claimed series of actions or activities directed to a general process of allocating office/workspace resources is a form of directing and organizing human actors to utilize defined workspace resources. Accordingly, Examiner respectfully maintains that considered as an ordered combination, the steps/functions of claim 1 are reasonably considered to be representative of the inventive concept and are further reasonably understood to be series of actions or activities directed to a general process of allocating office/workspace resources including analyzing resource utilization and suggesting resource allocations based on the analysis, which is an ineligible concept of Organizing Human Activity, namely, executing agreements in the form of contracts to occupy and utilize defined business resources and managing interactions among personnel to utilize the resources (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Further limitations are directed to ineligible Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) and processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to the implementation of Mathematical Concepts as ineligible abstract ideas (See at least Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978)). Further, the courts consider steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to Mathematical Concepts, representative claim 1 as presented by amendment recites:
“…determining the updated suggested resource allocation comprises…determining an optimization weighting for each possible allocation of the plurality of resources of each resource zone of the plurality of resource zones for the respective time period and selecting as the determined updated suggested resource allocation the possible allocation having the highest determined optimization weighting, wherein determining the optimization weighting includes determining one or more weighting factors for each resource zone of the plurality of resource zones of each resource zone, wherein determining the optimization weighting comprises identifying a resource zone of the plurality of resource zones as an attractor seed resource zone for a selected time period of the plurality of time periods for the member or members of a collaborative group, and to increase a weighting factor for each resource within the attractor seed resource zone to the member or members of the collaborative group at the selected time period…determine an optimization weighting for each possible allocation of the plurality of resources of each resource zone of the plurality of resource zones for the respective time period by: decreasing a weighting factor for first resources of the plurality of resources of each resource zone of the plurality of resource zones within each possible allocation when the observed actual resource utilization of the first resources at the time period falls outside the specified value range; increasing a weighting factor for first resources of the plurality of resources of each resource zone of the plurality of resource zones within each possible allocation when the observed actual resource utilization of the second resources at the time period falls within the specified value range…”
The claimed calculation of resource/allocation optimization weighting including the increasing and decreasing of weighting factors is/are reasonably understood in light of the supportive disclose to constitute a mathematical operations in which individual weighting factors are adjusted and combined via mathematical processes and, accordingly, are reasonably understood to constitute a recitation of mathematical processes (See at least Specification paragraphs [0129]-[0131]). The claim limitations further clarify that the mathematical processes further include an adjustment of weighting based on an observed attractor component which is relevant to resource allocations for defined groups of individuals. The amendments further add processes performable by human mental processing, e.g., identifying a resource zone as an attractor and identifying a highest weighted allocation.
With respect to further functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 1 as presented by amendment recites:
“…identifying a collaborative group of persons, the group comprising a plurality of group members…determining an expected resource utilization for each resource zone by determining a number of resources of the plurality of resources within the resource zone that have already been allocated to a respective number of persons at the respective time period, wherein the expected resource utilization for each resource zone comprises an indication of the number of resources in the resource zone that have already been allocated for the respective time period…”, “…determining…an updated suggested resource allocation…the updated suggested resource allocation comprising (i) a suggested additional allocation of resources or (ii) a suggested reallocation of already allocated resources, wherein the updated suggested resource allocation is an allocation of one or more resources of the plurality of resources in one or more resource zones for the respective time period and wherein the updated suggested resource allocation comprises an allocation of one or more resources to a member or members of the collaborative group…”, “…determining…an updated expected resource utilization based on an implementation of the updated suggested resource allocation by comparing the updated expected resource utilization to a specified value range…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited one or more processors, computing devices, and/or self-learning algorithm, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that identifying collaborative groups of people, observing an availability of resource to accommodate the group, and suggesting an allocation of resources based on a judgment of a best set of resources to accommodate the needs of the group are practicable/performable by a human using pen and paper and/or employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Claims 1, 21, and 22 recite technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
As presented by amendment, additional technical elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “storing resource allocations”, “user device”, “user interface”, and “self-learning algorithm”. Claim 1 further indicates, generally, that the claimed method is “computer-implemented” as designated in the preamble. Claims 21 and 22, directed to a system and computer-readable medium comprising/storing processor-executable instructions introduce “one or more processors” and processor-executable “instructions” as engaged in a general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “one or more processors/computing devices” and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “user device” is identified as displaying the user interface for a user to confirm suggested resource allocations.
(3) The “self-learning algorithm” is identified as being trained based on a generated training set by a process of increasing or decreasing weighting factors as resource usage deviates from a predicted resource usage and further utilized to determine suggested resource allocations and updating suggested resource allocations. The self-learning algorithm is further identified as performing an adjustment of weighting based on an observed attractor component which is relevant to resource allocations for defined groups of individuals and selecting a highest weighted allocation.
NOTE: For applicant’s benefit: Examiner appreciates Applicant’s amendments to include functions of adaptively identifying an “attractor seed” based on a determined group occupying a space for a defined time period and the further inclusion of the user device and interface as displaying the suggested resource allocations. However, as presented, these functions are limited to the underlying ineligible mathematical weighting processes and identification of resource zones and attributes zones and display of allocation suggestion data to users, i.e., display functions reasonably accommodated by generic display capacities of generic computing devices. Examiner suggests further amendments as reasonably supported by the specification (e.g., potentially floor diagrams of figs. 2A and 5A) to utilize the adaptive weighting factors for surrounding resources based on the determined ‘attractor” for the group to individualize or configure dashboard presentation(s) to users. Examiner further suggests potential incorporation of disclosed system control of environmental systems associated with the closing/opening and/or scheduling of use of resource zone and possible configuring of the allocation display based on the closing and opening of resource zones in accordance with the scheduling and algorithmic outputs.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
With respect to the identification of the “self-learning algorithm” and the associated utilization and training of the algorithm, Examiner notes the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register on 17 July 2024. In particular, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to Example 47, claim 2. Specifically, the instant recitations of “utilizing the self-learning algorithm” and “training the self-learning algorithm” are analogous to the training of an artificial neural network based on input data and receiving continuous training data of Examiner 47. Reasonably, the training data and feedback data are limited to mere data gathering and generating an output at a high level of generality and, by extension, are reasonably understood to constitute insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recited training process is limited to a recitation of the inputs and outputs to be applied to an undefined training process absent any technical specificity regarding actual training. Accordingly, the recited machine-learning processes and associated training are performable using any generic machine-learning model, but fail to specify any technical steps in obtaining the results other than to state that the model is trained.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., suggested and updated resource allocations are generated, allocations are stored, mathematical weightings are adjusted, data sets are generated etc.) as associated with a respective “processor” or “algorithm”. Beyond the general statement that these elements are generally used to perform the recited method (i.e., high-level general engagement with the method steps) the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “processor” and “algorithm” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a processor” or “using an algorithm”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., resource allocations, personnel data, and resource zone information); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., resource allocations, algorithms and weighting attributes); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., suggested resource allocations for user approval); and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., determining resource allocation using a based on observed data resource availability and personnel data) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of allocating office/workspace resources including analyzing resource utilization and suggesting resource allocations based on the analysis using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed allocating office/workspace resources including analyzing resource utilization and suggesting resource allocations based on the analysis benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0271]-[0280]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “one or more processors/computing devices” and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “user device” is identified as displaying the user interface for a user to confirm suggested resource allocations.
(3) The “self-learning algorithm” is identified as being trained based on a generated training set by a process of increasing or decreasing weighting factors as resource usage deviates from a predicted resource usage and further utilized to determine suggested resource allocations and updating suggested resource allocations. The self-learning algorithm is further identified as performing an adjustment of weighting based on an observed attractor component which is relevant to resource allocations for defined groups of individuals and selecting a highest weighted allocation.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., resource allocations, personnel data, and resource zone information); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., resource allocations, algorithms and weighting attributes); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., suggested resource allocations for user approval); and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., determining resource allocation using a based on observed data resource availability and personnel data).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of allocating office/workspace resources including analyzing resource utilization and suggesting resource allocations based on the analysis. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., allocating office/workspace resources including analyzing resource utilization and suggesting resource allocations based on the analysis, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of allocating office/workspace resources including analyzing resource utilization and suggesting resource allocations based on the analysis benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 21 and 22, directed to an apparatus/system and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-20 and 23-25, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Allowable Subject Matter
[5] Claims 1-25 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action. The Subject Matter Overcoming Art of Record remains substantially as stated in the previous Office Action mailed 27 March 2025. Examiner further notes that the previously identified closest prior art further fails to anticipate or otherwise render obvious the newly added features/functions directed to the dynamic optimization weighting based on an identified “attractor seed” resource aspect or zone.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[6] Applicant's remarks filed 17 February 2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] Applicant’s remarks in response to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 16 October 2025 are reasonably considered to have been fully addressed in the context of the revised rejection of the claims presented above responsive to the amendments to the subject claims and in consideration of the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update), published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024. Additionally, Applicant substantially rehashes arguments previously presented in the prior response. These arguments are addressed in accordance with Examiner’s response in the prior Office Action(s) mailed 16 October 2025 and 27 March 2025, incorporated in their entirety in response.
Conclusion
[7] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Choi et al., RESOURCE SCHEDULING SYSTEM, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0327464, paragraphs [0032] [0075]: Relevant Teachings: Choi discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions for workspace resource allocation which employs a weighting algorithm to prioritize reservations/assignments with respect to collaborative groups of users.
Blechner et al., FORCE-BASED ASSIGNMENTS, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0170060, paragraphs [0057]-[0059]: Relevant Teachings: Blechner discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions for allocating/reserving workspace with analyzes communications to determine collaborative interactions among workers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625