DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
7/23/2025. IDS filed 6/12/2025 has been considered. In Applicant’s amendment, claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-14 were amended. Claims 6 and 12 are canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-14 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 4 that claim 1 does not recite a judicial exception because it presents enough features related to exchanging signals, retrieving data from storages, comparing the retrieved data, etc., that are not related to organizing human activity. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Incorporating the use of processors, signals, and terminals to send/receive data, compare data, etc. does not preclude the claim from the realm of abstract ideas. These additional elements are considered individually and in combination with the limitations directed to the abstract idea at Step 2A, Prong 2. The focus of the amended claims is still directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity like managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) characterized by the data acquisition, data comparison, and notifications generated based on the compared data.
Applicant argues on p. 4-5 that claim 1 integrates any abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements recite interaction between different devices, such as the extension request, because this feature can prevent a user from waiting outside of a meeting room for too long without knowing the current meeting will be extended, and because this feature optimizes the time of the meeting and the efficiency of the usage of the meeting rooms. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Here, the claimed additional elements recite standard components performing their conventional functions: acquiring, comparing, generating, and sending data. The recited interactions between devices are routine uses of communicating between devices by sending and receiving data. Preventing a user from waiting too long or avoiding direct verbal communication is an improvement in organizing human activity. Improving meeting room scheduling efficiency is also an improvement in organizing human activity. The alleged integration is an improvement to business/organizational efficiency rather than an improvement to the efficiency of a computer or technology. The claims do not recite an improvement to the function of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claims merely use computers as tools to perform the abstract idea.
Applicant argues on p. 5 that claim 1 amounts to significantly more because the recited conditional logic notification with respect to the meeting room extension is not shown in any controller or processor described in the cited references. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.05.I.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s prior art arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 6-8 that Just does not disclose because Just merely describes that the information related to the reservation status of the meeting room is displayed to the user in the meeting room, and that the reservation is overwritten when the meeting room is reserved but not used. Examiner respectfully submits citations to Yamada disclosing the amended feature of receiving a signal of the extension request from the second user terminal, Yamada [0264] “The meeting information notification unit 37 … sends to the chat server 10 a message (information about the reservation for a meeting room);” [0266] “the terminal apparatus 60 receives the message, and the text display unit 63 displays the message” note the generation and sending of a targeted message to the expected participant’s terminal regarding information about the reservation for a meeting room. With respect to the input made on a second user terminal, message generation, and notification, see Just figs. 1A; 1B; [0042] “If a scheduling conflict manager 256 detects an overlap in the use of a room during the time selected by the user (i.e., a previous reservation for the room is identified), the override module 252 can in some cases be used to allow the current user to supersede and/or disregard the previous booking;” [0056] “it can be appreciated that the selected meeting overlaps or otherwise conflicts with a prior reservation for the room. In other words, the selected meeting may have a duration that extends into a time frame in which the second room has been already booked. In such cases, the system can notify the second user of the conflict, either on the outside interface panel, or on one of the displays in the room … In response to determining that there is a conflict, … the system may … allow the second user to discuss or coordinate the situation with the next user when the next user arrives … the user may be able to override the previous reservation” note the terminal in the meeting room accepting input from a user regarding a scheduling conflict and the system’s ability to notify a user of the conflict on the outside interface panel, which is functionally equivalent to notifying the first user terminal (terminal outside of the meeting room) of a message.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-14 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (system, method). Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 13-14 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “system”). Claim 11 is directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting acquires … location information … and identification information of the first user terminal … identifies first user identification information, associated with the first user, based on the identification information … and acquires … meeting schedule information of the first user identification information … determines whether a first meeting to be held in the first meeting room corresponding to the location information of the first user … is registered in the meeting schedule information or not; determines whether the first user identification information is registered in the meeting schedule information as a participant of the first meeting or not; and … when determining that the first meeting is registered in the meeting schedule information and that the first user identification information is registered in the meeting schedule information: notifies the … of first information corresponding to … that is held by a participant of a second meeting different from the first meeting and that is currently being held in the first meeting room; and notifies the second user … of second information corresponding to the first user … and when the … that has acquired the second information accepts an input of an extension request for a scheduled end time of the second meeting from the participant of the second meeting: … and generates a message inquiring whether an extension of the scheduled end time of the second meeting is possible or not to notify the … of the message (Example claim 1).
The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claims involve acquiring location and meeting schedule information to determine if a meeting is scheduled in a certain room, if the user is registered for that meeting, and if there is another meeting ongoing in that room, notifying a participant of the ongoing meeting of the other meeting information which is organizing human activity.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as acquisition circuitry; a first user terminal held by a first user, a first signal; when the first user terminal reads a reading target installed outside a first meeting room; a storage; determination circuitry; notification circuitry; a second user terminal; receives a signal of the extension request from the second user terminal) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10 and 13-14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite 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).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05.I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite 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).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing steps to “acquire” location and identification information, “identify” first user identification information, “acquire” meeting schedule information, “determine” whether a first meeting is to be held in a first meeting room, “determine” whether the first user is registered, “notify” the first user of the first meeting and a participant of a second meeting, “receive” a signal, and “generate” a message to notify the first user of the message (example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-14 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Yamada et al., US 20190012614 A1, hereinafter Yamada, in view of
Fyke et al., CA 2752972 A1, hereinafter Fyke, in view of
Just et al., US 20200302344 A1, hereinafter Just. As per,
Claim 1
Yamada teaches
A meeting management apparatus which manages a meeting in which a plurality of users participates, the meeting management apparatus comprising: (Yamada [0007])
acquisition circuitry that: acquires, from a first user terminal held by a first user, a first signal comprising location information of the first user terminal, and identification information of the first user terminal when the first user terminal reads a reading target installed outside a first meeting room; (Yamada [0174] “The server communication unit 65 of the meeting application 60b communicates with the meeting management server 30. In the present embodiment, the server communication unit 65 obtains a two-dimensional code including the meeting identification information from the meeting management server 30;” [0177] “The terminal communication unit 68 communicates with the meeting room terminal 90 to transmit the meeting identification information” noting the obtaining of the code and transmission of the meeting identification information corresponding to the reading of the reading target given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of applicant’s specification of a reading target in [0036]; Yamada [0007] “The circuitry obtains reservation information from the reservation management apparatus, and obtains, from the obtained reservation information, particular identification information for reservation identifying a user who requested a reservation of a resource indicated by the obtained reservation information” note the particular identification information; fig. 26)
identifies first user identification information, associated with the first user, based on the identification information of the first user terminal; and (Yamada [0093] “the meeting management server 30 detects the expected participant in the reservation information;” fig. 26 noting the expected participant performing the check-in process for authenticating access to the meeting room through the meeting room terminal)
acquires, from a storage, meeting schedule information of the first user identification information; (Yamada [0350] “The meeting information notification unit 37 of the meeting management server 30 transmits, to the chat server 10 (terminal apparatus 60), the meeting identification information together with information about a reservation for a meeting room” noting the retrieval of meeting information including reservations for a meeting room; [0007] “The circuitry identifies, from the association information in the memory using the particular identification information for reservation” note the identification information acquired from memory)
determination circuitry that: determines whether a first meeting to be held in the first meeting room corresponding to the location information of the first user terminal is registered in the meeting schedule information or not; (Yamada [0358] “The check-in management unit 38 of the meeting management server 30 determines whether the received meeting identification information matches meeting identification information of the latest scheduled meeting” noting the system checking if the current meeting information corresponds to the scheduled meeting)
determines whether the first user identification information is registered in the meeting schedule information as a participant of the first meeting or not; and (Yamada [0395] “The check-in management unit 38 searches the meeting identification information DB 494 using the meeting room ID and the meeting identification information to identify a reservation ID (S3112);” [0405] “FIG. 32C illustrates an example of an error notification screen. An expected participant selects (presses) Menu 1 in FIG. 32A to check in using two-dimensional code. On the other hand, an expected participant selects (presses) Menu 2 in FIG. 32A to check in using meeting identification information” noting the verification of a participant for the registered meeting)
[…];
[…]; receives a signal of the extension request from the second user terminal; and […]. (Yamada [0264] “The meeting information notification unit 37 … sends to the chat server 10 a message (information about the reservation for a meeting room);” [0266] “the terminal apparatus 60 receives the message, and the text display unit 63 displays the message” note the generation and sending of a targeted message to the expected participant’s terminal)
Yamada does not explicitly teach, Fyke however in the analogous art of meeting room reservations teaches
notification circuitry that: when determining that the first meeting is registered in the meeting schedule information and that the first user identification information is registered in the meeting schedule information: notifies the first user terminal of first information corresponding to a second user terminal that is held by a participant of a second meeting different from the first meeting and that is currently being held in the first meeting room; and notifies the second user terminal of second information corresponding to the first user terminal; and (Fyke [0036] “Example notifications that may be provided upon checking in with the RFID sensor 31 may include … that the meeting room is reserved and occupied” note the notification to the first user terminal when the checked in participant is at the right meeting room they’ve reserved but the meeting room is still currently occupied by an ongoing reservation; [0012] “The system may further include a reservation server configured to schedule reserved starting and ending times for the meeting room, track checked-in mobile wireless communications devices based upon RFID communication with the at least one RFID sensor, and send at least one reservation expiration notification based upon a reserved ending time and a subsequent check-in of another mobile wireless communications device having a subsequent reserved starting time … the system advantageously allows reminder messages to be discretely sent to mobile wireless communications devices of occupants currently in a meeting room without the need for interruption or confrontation by those waiting to enter the meeting room for a subsequent meeting.” Note the system transmitting a notification to the current occupants aligned with the notification transmitted to a second user terminal currently in the meeting room)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada’s meeting room reservation system to include notifying current occupants of the meeting room at their mobile device of the next scheduled meeting in view of Fyke in an effort to discretely alert them without interrupting their meeting (see Fyke ¶ [0012] & MPEP 2143G).
Yamada / Fyke do not explicitly teach, Just however in the analogous art of meeting room reservations teaches
when the second user terminal, that has acquired the second information, accepts an input of an extension request, for a scheduled end time of the second meeting, from the participant of the second meeting: […] generates a message inquiring whether an extension of the scheduled end time of the second meeting is possible or not to notify the first user terminal of the message. (Just figs. 1A; 1B; [0042] “If a scheduling conflict manager 256 detects an overlap in the use of a room during the time selected by the user (i.e., a previous reservation for the room is identified), the override module 252 can in some cases be used to allow the current user to supersede and/or disregard the previous booking;” [0056] “it can be appreciated that the selected meeting overlaps or otherwise conflicts with a prior reservation for the room. In other words, the selected meeting may have a duration that extends into a time frame in which the second room has been already booked. In such cases, the system can notify the second user of the conflict, either on the outside interface panel, or on one of the displays in the room … In response to determining that there is a conflict, … the system may … allow the second user to discuss or coordinate the situation with the next user when the next user arrives … the user may be able to override the previous reservation” note the terminal in the meeting room accepting input from a user regarding a scheduling conflict and the system’s ability to notify a user of the conflict on the outside interface panel, which is functionally equivalent to notifying the first user terminal (terminal outside of the meeting room) of a message)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada’s meeting room reservation system that includes target messaging with expected participants and Fyke’s discrete alerts to include managing an extended use of a meeting room that is reserved in view of Just in an effort to enhance users’ ability to schedule meeting room use (see Just ¶ [0026] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 2
Yamada / Just do not explicitly teach, Fyke however in the analogous art of meeting room reservations teaches
notification circuitry further causes the second user terminal to display the second information, the second information relating to a location of the first user terminal. (Fyke [0024] “the reservation server may track that the given mobile device 34 is checked-in for the reserved start time;” [0025] “the reservation server 36 may also advantageously send one or more reservation expiration notifications to the checked-in mobile device 34b based upon its reserved ending time and a subsequent check-in of the mobile device 34a having a subsequent reserved starting time” note the occupants being notified of the checked in user outside of the meeting room)
The motivation/rationale to combine Yamada / Just with Fyke persists.
Claim 3
Yamada / Just do not explicitly teach, Fyke however in the analogous art of meeting room reservations teaches
notification circuitry further causes the second user terminal to display the third information, the third information relating to an end time of the second meeting, and (Fyke [0032] “in the present example the reservation expiration notification(s) may advantageously be provided to the terminal 38', which remains in the meeting room 32'. In the illustrated example, the terminal 38' (here a laptop computer) includes a display, and the reservation expiration notification takes the form of a countdown clock shown on the display which indicates how much time is left before the reserved ending time for the meeting (one minute, thirty-five seconds in the example)“ noting the end time)
causes the first user terminal to display fourth information relating to a start time of the first meeting. (Fyke [0014] “In addition, the reservation server may further be configured to send an availability notification to the other mobile wireless communications device based upon checkout of the checked-in mobile wireless communications device” noting the notification of the meeting room available to start the meeting the user is checked in for)
The motivation/rationale to combine Yamada / Just with Fyke persists.
Claim 4
Yamada teaches
notification circuitry further causes the first user terminal to display the first information, the first information indicating that the second meeting is being held in the first meeting room. (Yamada fig. 25 noting a user checking the reservation list of the day for a meeting room; [0493] “When the server communication unit 91 of the meeting room terminal 90 obtains information indicating that the check-in is permitted (S4004: YES), the electronic device communication unit 95 determines whether a check-out notification is obtained from the meeting management server 30 (S4007). When no check-out notification is received (S4007: NO), the meeting room terminal 90 waits until a check-out notification is received”)
Claim 5
Yamada teaches
wherein in a case that a time at which the location information is acquired is within a period from a predetermined time before a scheduled start time of the first meeting to the scheduled start time, the notification circuitry notifies the second user terminal of the second information, the second information relating to a location of the first user terminal. (Yamada [0154] “When the server communication unit 91 of the meeting room terminal 90 obtains information indicating that the check-in is permitted (S4004: YES), the electronic device communication unit 95 determines whether a check-out notification is obtained from the meeting management server 30 (S4007). When no check-out notification is received (S4007: NO), the meeting room terminal 90 waits until a check-out notification is received” noting the check in permitted within the predetermined time before the start of the scheduled start; [0366] “The display control unit 94 of the meeting room terminal 90 displays information indicating that an entry to the room is being waited”)
Claim 7
Yamada teaches
wherein in a case that a time at which the location information included in the first signal is acquired is earlier than a predetermined time before a scheduled start time of the first meeting, the notification circuitry sends a second signal comprising warning information to the first user terminal. (Yamada [0368] “when the check-in is denied, the following processes are executed. S2806-8: The display control unit 94 of the meeting room terminal 90 displays an error message. For example, a message like “Reservation time is still ahead.” is displayed.”)
Claim 8
Yamada teaches
wherein when the first meeting is held and a second user who participates in the first meeting in a second meeting room is registered in the meeting schedule information, the notification circuitry causes at least one of a user terminal of the second user and a display installed in the second meeting room to display the second information, the second information relating to a location of the first user terminal. (Yamada [0068] “The meeting management server 30 communicates with the chat server 10, to control the chat server 10 as the notification robot registered in the group 1 to notify the expected participants belonging to the group 1 of the information about the reservation of the meeting room;” [0366] “The display control unit 94 of the meeting room terminal 90 displays information indicating that an entry to the room is being waited” noting meeting information notifications displayed on the room terminal and user terminals)
Claim 9
Yamada teaches
wherein when the first user terminal reads the reading target installed in association with the first meeting room, the acquisition circuitry acquires the location information of the first user terminal included in the first signal. (Yamada [0174] “The server communication unit 65 of the meeting application 60b communicates with the meeting management server 30. In the present embodiment, the server communication unit 65 obtains a two-dimensional code including the meeting identification information from the meeting management server 30;” [0177] “The terminal communication unit 68 communicates with the meeting room terminal 90 to transmit the meeting identification information” noting the obtaining of the code and transmission of the meeting identification information corresponding to the reading of the reading target given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of applicant’s specification of a reading target in [0036]; Yamada [0007] “The circuitry obtains reservation information from the reservation management apparatus, and obtains, from the obtained reservation information, particular identification information for reservation identifying a user who requested a reservation of a resource indicated by the obtained reservation information” note the particular identification information; fig. 26)
Claim 10
Yamada teaches
wherein when a participant of a meeting performs a meeting start operation on a user terminal, the acquisition circuitry acquires a signal comprising location information of the user terminal held by the participant. (Yamada [0359] “ The check-in management unit 38 transmits a check-in result to the meeting room terminal 90”)
Claim 11
Yamada teaches
A meeting management method performed by a meeting management apparatus which a plurality of users participates, the method comprising:
acquiring, from a first user terminal held by a first user, a first signal comprising location information of the first user terminal, and identification information of the first user terminal when the first user terminal reads a reading target installed outside a first meeting room; (Yamada [0174] “The server communication unit 65 of the meeting application 60b communicates with the meeting management server 30. In the present embodiment, the server communication unit 65 obtains a two-dimensional code including the meeting identification information from the meeting management server 30;” [0177] “The terminal communication unit 68 communicates with the meeting room terminal 90 to transmit the meeting identification information” noting the obtaining of the code and transmission of the meeting identification information corresponding to the reading of the reading target given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of applicant’s specification of a reading target in [0036]; Yamada [0007] “The circuitry obtains reservation information from the reservation management apparatus, and obtains, from the obtained reservation information, particular identification information for reservation identifying a user who requested a reservation of a resource indicated by the obtained reservation information” note the particular identification information; fig. 26)
identifying first user identification information, associated with the first user, based on the identification information of the first user terminal, and (Yamada [0093] “the meeting management server 30 detects the expected participant in the reservation information;” fig. 26 noting the expected participant performing the check-in process for authenticating access to the meeting room through the meeting room terminal)
acquiring, from a storage, meeting schedule information of the first user identification information; (Yamada [0350] “The meeting information notification unit 37 of the meeting management server 30 transmits, to the chat server 10 (terminal apparatus 60), the meeting identification information together with information about a reservation for a meeting room” noting the retrieval of meeting information including reservations for a meeting room; [0007] “The circuitry identifies, from the association information in the memory using the particular identification information for reservation” note the identification information acquired from memory)
determining whether a first meeting to be held in the first meeting room corresponding to the location information of the first user terminal is registered in the meeting schedule information or not; (Yamada [0358] “The check-in management unit 38 of the meeting management server 30 determines whether the received meeting identification information matches meeting identification information of the latest scheduled meeting” noting the system checking if the current meeting information corresponds to the scheduled meeting)
determining whether the first user identification information is registered in the meeting schedule information as a participant of the first meeting or not; and (Yamada [0395] “The check-in management unit 38 searches the meeting identification information DB 494 using the meeting room ID and the meeting identification information to identify a reservation ID (S3112);” [0405] “FIG. 32C illustrates an example of an error notification screen. An expected participant selects (presses) Menu 1 in FIG. 32A to check in using two-dimensional code. On the other hand, an expected participant selects (presses) Menu 2 in FIG. 32A to check in using meeting identification information” noting the verification of a participant for the registered meeting)
[…];
[…] receiving a signal of the extension request from the second user terminal […]. (Yamada [0264] “The meeting information notification unit 37 … sends to the chat server 10 a message (information about the reservation for a meeting room);” [0266] “the terminal apparatus 60 receives the message, and the text display unit 63 displays the message” note the generation and sending of a targeted message to the expected participant’s terminal)
Yamada does not explicitly teach, Fyke however in the analogous art of meeting room reservations teaches
when determining that the first meeting is registered in the meeting schedule information and that the first user identification information is registered in the meeting schedule information, notifying the first user terminal of first information corresponding to a second user terminal that is held by a participant of a second meeting different from the first meeting and that is currently being held in the first meeting room and notifying the second user terminal of second information corresponding to the first user terminal; and (Fyke [0036] “Example notifications that may be provided upon checking in with the RFID sensor 31 may include … that the meeting room is reserved and occupied” note the notification to the first user terminal when the checked in participant is at the right meeting room they’ve reserved but the meeting room is still currently occupied by an ongoing reservation; [0012] “The system may further include a reservation server configured to schedule reserved starting and ending times for the meeting room, track checked-in mobile wireless communications devices based upon RFID communication with the at least one RFID sensor, and send at least one reservation expiration notification based upon a reserved ending time and a subsequent check-in of another mobile wireless communications device having a subsequent reserved starting time … the system advantageously allows reminder messages to be discretely sent to mobile wireless communications devices of occupants currently in a meeting room without the need for interruption or confrontation by those waiting to enter the meeting room for a subsequent meeting.” Note the system transmitting a notification to the current occupants aligned with the notification transmitted to a second user terminal currently in the meeting room)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada’s meeting room reservation system to include notifying current occupants of the meeting room at their mobile device of the next scheduled meeting in view of Fyke in an effort to discretely alert them without interrupting their meeting (see Fyke ¶ [0012] & MPEP 2143G).
Yamada / Fyke do not explicitly teach, Just however in the analogous art of meeting room reservations teaches
when the second user terminal that has acquired the second information accepts an input of an extension request for a scheduled end time of the second meeting from the participant of the second meeting, […] and generating a message inquiring whether an extension of the scheduled end time of the second meeting is possible or not to notify the first user terminal of the message. (Just figs. 1A; 1B; [0042] “If a scheduling conflict manager 256 detects an overlap in the use of a room during the time selected by the user (i.e., a previous reservation for the room is identified), the override module 252 can in some cases be used to allow the current user to supersede and/or disregard the previous booking;” [0056] “it can be appreciated that the selected meeting overlaps or otherwise conflicts with a prior reservation for the room. In other words, the selected meeting may have a duration that extends into a time frame in which the second room has been already booked. In such cases, the system can notify the second user of the conflict, either on the outside interface panel, or on one of the displays in the room … In response to determining that there is a conflict, … the system may … allow the second user to discuss or coordinate the situation with the next user when the next user arrives … the user may be able to override the previous reservation” note the terminal in the meeting room accepting input from a user regarding a scheduling conflict and the system’s ability to notify a user of the conflict on the outside interface panel, which is functionally equivalent to notifying the first user terminal (terminal outside of the meeting room) of a message )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada’s meeting room reservation system that includes target messaging with expected participants and Fyke’s discrete alerts to include managing an extended use of a meeting room that is reserved in view of Just in an effort to enhance users’ ability to schedule meeting room use (see Just ¶ [0026] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 13
Yamada / Just do not explicitly teach, Fyke however in the analogous art of meeting room reservations teaches
wherein when the acquisition circuitry acquires the location information of the first user terminal and the identification information of the first user terminal included in the first signal, the notification circuitry notifies the first user terminal of the first information and notify the second user terminal of the second information. (Fyke [0012] “The system may further include a reservation server configured to schedule reserved starting and ending times for the meeting room, track checked-in mobile wireless communications devices based upon RFID communication with the at least one RFID sensor, and send at least one reservation expiration notification based upon a reserved ending time and a subsequent check-in of another mobile wireless communications device having a subsequent reserved starting time.” Note the system acquiring the location and identification information of the first user based upon RFID communication of the user’s mobile device and the RFID sensor, and in response, sending a notification to the second user’s mobile device about the subsequent start time; Fyke [0036] “Example notifications that may be provided upon checking in with the RFID sensor 31 may include … that the meeting room is reserved and occupied” note the notification to the first user terminal when the checked in participant is at the right meeting room they’ve reserved)
The motivation/rationale to combine Yamada / Just with Fyke persists.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Yamada in view of Fyke in view of Just in view of
Holmes et al., US 20170357917 A1, hereinafter Holmes. As per,
Claim 14
Yamada / Fyke / Just do not explicitly teach, Holmes however in the analogous art of meeting room reservations teaches
wherein when the participant of the second meeting is in the second meeting in the first meeting room, and another participant of the first meeting to be held after the second meeting enters a second meeting room, which is different from the first meeting room and in which the first meeting is held by connecting the first meeting room and the second meeting room, and completes preparation for the first meeting, the notification circuitry notifies the second information to the participant of the second meeting. (Holmes fig. 15M; [0444] “FIG. 15L also illustrates the second electronic device 504-A-1 displaying a notification 1558 indicating that participants of the next meeting checked-in in response to the swipe gesture over the claiming affordance 1514 in FIG. 15K” noting the participant of the ongoing meeting (second meeting) notified of the participants of the next meeting checked-in (predetermined information); fig. 19K; [0449] “the second electronic device 504-A-1 also displays options for transferring an electronic conference (e.g., a teleconference or videoconference) to the Callisto meeting space (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 19H-19K). In one example, the electronic conference is placed on hold until the participants check-in at the Callisto meeting space at which time the electronic conference is presented via the equipment within the Callisto meeting space” note the electronic conference (second meeting room) and the physical conference room Callisto (first meeting room) connected to complete preparation for the meeting)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamada’s meeting room reservation system, Fyke’s discrete alerts, and Just’s scheduling conflict management to include integration of electronic conferences with a meeting room and notifying participants of an ongoing meeting in a reserved room in view of Holmes in an effort to allow meetings to finish in an uninterrupted and time efficient manner (see Holmes ¶ [0689] & MPEP 2143G).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20170083872 A1; Fink et al., Scheduling with uncertain resources: Representation of common knowledge, 2009; WO 2020068526 A1; .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624