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
Claims 1-8 were rejected in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 07/02/2025. Applicant’s amended claimset, entered on 10/02/2025, amended Claims 1 and 7-8. Herein this Final Office Action, Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for bypass continuation of PCT application. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/JP2021/020137, filed on March 27, 2021, which claims foreign priority to JP-2020-093871 filed on March 29, 2020.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1 and 7-8 recites “computer-readable non-temporary storage medium . . . .” In light of specification of Paragraph 65, the limitation of being “non-temporary” is interpreted as excluding transitory or mere waveform signals from the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “medium,” analogous to a “non-transitory” medium.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/02/2025, with respect to 35 USC 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection on Pages 6-11 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Pages 6-7 Applicant summarizes the previous office action, provides support for the claim amendments, and summarizes the amended claims. Examiner does not materially disagree.
On Pages 7-8, Applicant argues that the added features of amended Claim 1 integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong 2. Applicant argues that the user avoiding congestion based on a received congestion status is a “significant effect resulting from a technical improvement, thereby obtaining a technical effect ‘a time when the user waits in the facility in order to use the facility can be shortened’ (paragraph [0010] of the specification of the
present application).” Applicant concludes that because the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application “there is no preemption” and the claim recites patent eligible subject matter. Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that any advantage of a claim does not necessitate a patent eligible “technical improvement” under MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f)II states “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Examiner responds that the asserted advantages are a part of the abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity). Although discussed in greater detail in the rejection section below, the added features of amended Claim 1, recite the advantage of a customer receiving an improved customer experience based on received information, which is an improvement in at least “advertising” and “marketing or sales activities or behaviors,” not an improvement in technology. Therefore, the amended claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Additionally, Examiner notes that MPEP 2106.04.I states “While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) ("We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection"). See also Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, 839 F.3d at 1150, 120 USPQ2d at 1483; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320-21, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Sequenom, 788 F.3d at 1379, 115 USPQ2d at 1158.”
On Page 8, Applicant argues that because the claims are novel (and non obvious), “the rejection rationale that the present claims merely recite an existing process being performed by a computer is undermined.” Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.04.I states “The Supreme Court’s decisions make it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. . . Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all"); . . .”
MPEP 2106.05.I states “Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101 "). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.").”
Examiner responds that the withdrawal of the art rejection is “of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” See MPEP 2106.05.I.
On Pages 8-9, Applicant argues, “The Office Action, page 4, item 9.a, provides: "a. Examiner responds that the "prediction model" including its inputs, outputs, and data types, is a part of the abstract idea of "mathematical concepts" and "certain methods of organizing human activity" under MPEP 2106.04(a) as discussed in greater detail below." However, the present claim 1 recites more than a mere "prediction model" to be deemed a mathematical concept or a method of organizing human activity per se, because claim 1 recites a "prediction model" enabling prediction "based on the sensing information [[[acquired from the motion sensor to a server device via a network]]." The Office Action, page 4, item 9.b, provides: "b. As stated in MPEP 2106.0S(a), "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself ... is not an improvement in technology." Specification ffl"l34-39 discuss the advantages of the abstract idea (i.e. model) itself, and therefore does not include the required "technical" explanation of an improvement to "technology." The amendments limit the type of information used by the "prediction model" (i.e. 5 minutes as a smallest unit of time), which merely limits the functioning of the abstract idea. Therefore, Examiner's determination that the claims merely apply the abstract idea with generic computer components under MPEP 2106.0S(f) remains." In other words, according to the Office Action, the present claims may only improve the abstract idea of a ‘prediction model,’ thereby improving the abstract idea itself. However, as pointed out above, the present claimed ‘prediction model’ could not reasonably be equated to the abstract idea of a mathematical concept or human activity per se, when the claimed ‘predication model’ is based on sensing information of motion sensors for each seat in a facility, which is not a mathematical concept or human activity per se. As pointed out in the USPTO Memorandum of August 4, 2025, a claim as a whole should be analyzed and not to expand the grouping of mathematical concept or human activity to encompass a "prediction model" of the present claim 1 which is a model enabling prediction "based on the sensing information [[[acquired from the motion sensor to a server device via a network]]," namely "predict a time with 5 minutes as a smallest unit of time when the congestion status of the facility is changed from a first congestion status to a second congestion status, based on the prediction model, so that prediction information based on the time predicted includes temporal changes in the congestion status with the 5 minutes as a smallest unit of time." Examiner does not agree.
Examiner has, in the prior office action and herein, explicitly quoted the claim language identified as the recited abstract idea, summarized the limitations conceptually, and identified at least one of non-mutually exclusive “groupings,” with further explanation, for each aspect of the recited abstract idea. Examiner has, in the prior office action and herein, explicitly identified the “additional elements,” which are not part of the recited abstract idea and to be analyzed in Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Examiner responds that the “sensing information” is part of the abstract idea, as it is merely the information that results from observing if a seat is occupied or not. The use of this information as an input to the “prediction model” remains part of the abstract idea. The “motion sensor” is identified as an additional element. As outlined in the rejection below, the use of the “motion sensor” to acquire the sensing information is (at least) merely use of generic computer components in its ordinary capacity to apply the abstract idea of observing the presence or absence of the user on the seat. Additionally, as outlined in the rejection below, each of the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or provide “significantly more.”
Although the input to the prediction model and execution of the prediction model uses generic computer components, the claim are analyzed using the analytical framework of MPEP 2106 to determine the scope of the recited abstract idea, identify the additional elements, and determine if the additional elements integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) or provide “significantly more” (Step 2B). As outlined in the rejection section below, the claims fail the recite patent eligible subject matter.
On Pages 9-11, Applicant argues “The subject matter of the present claim 1 improves a conventional congestion information display system by use of a particular "prediction model ... of a congestion status of the facility based on the sensing information" from "a motion sensor that is provided for each seat of the plurality of seats and acquires sensing information on presence or absence of the users on each seat of the plurality of seats," which is sufficiently described in the present specification by a technical explanation, for example, in the present specification paragraphs [0034-0039], showing the improvement in the technology of motion sensors for seats in compliance with MPEP 2106.0S(f). In other words, the improvement in functioning of a computer and integration into a practical application is based on the technical explanation in the present specification and the present claim 1 recitation of storing "a prediction model ... of a congestion status of the facility based on the sensing information," from "a motion sensor that is provided for each seat of the plurality of seats and acquires sensing information on presence or absence of the users on each seat of the plurality of seats," where sensing information is used to build the prediction model so that the system is configured to: predict a time with 5 minutes as a smallest unit of time when the congestion status of the facility is changed from a first congestion status to a second congestion status, based on the prediction model, so that prediction information based on the time predicted includes temporal changes in the congestion status with the 5 minutes as a smallest unit of time, based on the prediction model; and display, on a display device, the prediction information indicating that the congestion status is changed from the first congestion status to the second congestion status at the time predicted, so that the display device is configured to receive the congestion status or the prediction information from the server device via the network and to display the congestion status or the prediction information including the temporal changes in the congestion status with the 5 minutes as a smallest unit of time for the user to institute: adjusting a usage time zone of the facility and shortening a waiting time to avoid a congestion time zone, visiting the facility for taking out without using the facility for avoiding congestion by checking the congestion status in advance, or avoiding congestion based on the congestion status to avoid other users crowded in a store, . . . It is apparent that the present claim 1 as amended improves a function of a computer or the technology of motions sensor for seats to display the claimed type of prediction information by way of displaying the congestion status or the prediction information including the temporal changes in the congestion status with the 5 minutes as a smallest unit of time, which integrates into a practical application any abstract idea in compliance with 35 USC 101 including Step 2A, prong 2, of the USPTO 2019 PEG. For example, support for the claims may be found at paragraph [0030] of the specification of the present application including "As indicated by times in FIG. 3A, the congestion information is acquired and recorded at intervals of five minutes. The congestion information of the facility 10 is indicated by "0", "1", or "2". As shown in FIG. 3B, the congestion information "0" indicates that the congestion status is "vacant seats", "1" indicates that the congestion status is "few vacant seats", and "2" indicates that the congestion status is "congested" and paragraph [0063] of the specification of the present application describes "For example, as shown in display area 413 in FIG. 6E, the temporal change in the congestion status may be displayed as the prediction information." Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that the specification does not include a technical explanation for the improvement in motion sensor technology. Specification ¶¶38-39 merely discloses that the “sensing information acquired for each seat in the facility 10” is used to calculate a percentage of seats occupied, and then apply thresholds to the calculated percentage to output a number 0-2 representing “vacant seats,” “few vacant seats,” or “congested.” The specification makes no technical explanation as to how the motion sensor detects occupancy or any further limitation to the type of motion sensor used. Therefore, only an ordinary and generic “motion sensor” would satisfy the disclosure requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See also MPEP 2106.07(a)III (“A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a).”). Therefore, the specification cannot include an improvement in motion sensor technology.
Examiner responds that the application of the prediction model to predict the vacancy of seats is a business improvement implement by mathematical calculations as discussed in greater detail in the rejection section below. The computer components are merely used to implement the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f). Applicant’s specification provides no “technical explanation,” e.g. explanation of a “technical solution” to a “technical problem,” related to the “five minutes” interval used. Therefore, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), Examiner determines that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claims could be implemented by the additional elements using generic computer component, as no improvement to technology is disclosed. Specifically, ¶19 states that “The display device 400 is realized by, for example, a device such as a smartphone, a tablet terminal, a personal computer (PC), or a digital signage,” which further demonstrate the generic nature of the display. Therefore, the claims do not include an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to the functioning of a motion sensor. Thus, the rejection remains.
On Page 11, Applicant concludes that the amended independent claims recite patent eligible subject matter, and therefore the rejection under 35 USC 101 should be withdrawn, putting the claims in a condition of allowance. Examiner does not agree. As discussed in greater detail above and below, the amended claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-6 recite a system (i.e. a machine or manufacture), Claim 7 recites a method (i.e. a process), and Claim 8 recite a medium (i.e. a machine or manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1-8 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
. . . acquires sensing information on presence or absence of the users on each seat of the plurality of seats;
. . . to transmit the sensing information acquired . . . ;
. . . to store a prediction model which enables prediction of a congestion status of the facility based on the sensing information;
. . . to:
predict a time with 5 minutes as a smallest unit of time when the congestion status of the facility is changed from a first congestion status to a second congestion status, based on the prediction model, so that prediction information based on the time predicted includes temporal changes in the congestion status with the 5 minutes as a smallest unit of time, based on the prediction model; and
display, . . . , prediction information indicating that the congestion status is changed from the first congestion status to the second congestion status at the time predicteddisplay the congestion status or the prediction information including the temporal changes in the congestion status with the 5 minutes as a smallest unit of time for the user to institute:
adjusting a usage time zone of the facility and shortening a waiting time to avoid a congestion time zone, visiting the facility for taking out without using the facility for avoiding congestion by checking the congestion status in advance, or avoiding congestion based on the congestion status to avoid other users crowded in a store,
wherein when the first congestion status is information indicating that there are no vacant seats, the second congestion status is information indicating that there are vacant seats, and
when the first congestion status is information indicating that there are vacant seats, the second congestion status is information indicating that there are no vacant seats.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) acquiring information about presence or absence of the user, (2) transmitting the acquired information, (3) storing a prediction model, (4) predicting a time, with the smallest unit of 5 minutes, that a congestion status changes based on the prediction model, (5) displaying information that the status has changed so that a user can better manage usage of the facility (i.e. avoid congestion by adjust usage to shorten waiting time or using the facility via “take out”), and (6) defining what a status change is (i.e. no vacant to vacant or vacant to no vacant), and (7) receiving and displaying information, all of which are mathematical calculations (i.e. a mathematical prediction model which performs calculations), which is a mathematical concepts, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I, commercial or legal activities (i.e. providing service facility information to a customer so the customer can decide how to best use the service facility is at least “advertising.” The customer making choices based on certain information to best interact with the service facility to improve customer satisfaction is at least “marketing or sales activities or behaviours.”) and managing personal behavior by following rules and interacting between people (i.e. the status of the congestion of a facility is the status of a “social activity.” Additionally, avoiding congestion, other users, and crowds is a “social activity.”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II, and observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (i.e. presence or absence information and the determination of congestion status), which are mental processes, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.
The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the “system,” “motion sensor,” “facility,” server device,” “network,” “computer-readable non-temporary storage medium,” “processor,” and “display device”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “mathematical calculations” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) a “system,” comprising:
(ii) “motion sensor;”
(iii) “facility;”
(iv) “computer-readable non-temporary storage medium;” and
(v) “server device” including (vi) “processor,”
(vii) “network;” and
(viii) “display device.”
The additional elements of (i) a system, comprising: (ii) “motion sensor” (Fig. 1 and ¶¶15-16 shows “sensor device 100” includes “motion sensor.”); (iii) “facility” (Fig. 1 and ¶17 shows “gateway 200”); (iv) “computer-readable non-temporary storage medium,” (v) “server device,” and (vi) “processor” (Fig. 1, ¶¶22-23, ¶65, and ¶88 shows a central processing unit (CPU) is provided as hardware in the server device 300 to execute a program stored on a computer readable non-temporary storage medium.); (vii) “network” (Fig. 1 and ¶17 shows “network NW” include “wide area network (WAN,” such as the “internet.”); and (iv) “display device” (¶19 shows “The display device 400 is realized by, for example, a device such as a smartphone, a tablet terminal, a personal computer (PC), or a digital signage.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 shows elements in combination), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations related to the congestion of a facility when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 shows elements in combination.), do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer modeling environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 shows elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) a “system,” comprising: (ii) “motion sensor;” (iii) “facility;” (iv) “computer-readable non-temporary storage medium;” and (v) “server device” including (vi) “processor;” (vii) “network;” and (viii) “display device,” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1 shows elements in combination), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-6 recite the abstract idea of:
“. . . determine a current congestion status of the facility” (Claim 2);
“wherein when the current congestion status of the facility is the first congestion status, a time when the current congestion status of the facility is changed from the first congestion status to the second congestion status is predicted” (Claim 2);
“wherein [it is] display[ed], . . . as the prediction information, a time until the congestion status of the facility is changed from the first congestion status to the second congestion status” (Claim 3);
“to predict a duration time of the second congestion status, display the duration time predicted. . . as the prediction information” (Claim 4);
“predict congestion statuses at a plurality of times afterClaim 5); and
“[it is] generate[d], as the prediction model, a trained model . . . , based on sensing information on presence or absence of the users in the facility, acquired by . . . the facility, and congestion information corresponding to the sensing information indicating the congestion status of the facility” (Claim 6).
Dependent Claims 2-6, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 2-6 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations (1) determine current congestion status, (2) predict a time when first congestion status will change to second congestion status, (3) display predicted time, (4) predict duration of second congestion, and (5) generated a prediction model based on a trained machine learning model that utilizes sensor information. The further elements of Claims 2-6 (i.e. “processor” and “display device” of Claim 1 and motion sensor and machine learning in Claim 6) fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite additional generic computer hardware similar to the generic computer hardware of Claim 1 or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use (i.e. computer modeling environment) just as in Claim 1. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 2-6 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 1. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 1 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 2-6, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-6 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 2-6 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-6 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 7 recites elements and limitations that are substantially similar to Claim 1. Claim 7 recite a method embodied by the elements and limitations of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 just as Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Claim 8 recites elements and limitations that are substantially similar to Claims 1. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 just as Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Reasons for Removal of Art Rejection
Claims 1-8 were not rejected over the prior art of record in the prior office action and remain not rejected over the prior art of record.
The Closest prior art of record is:
US-20190057325-A1 (“Ishii”),
WO-2018180296-A1 (“Kawano”),
US-20170220957-A1 (“A. Lee”),
US-20200065840-A1 (“Pinel”),
US-20160337453-A1 (“J. Lee”),
“Desired privacy and the impact of crowding on customer emotions and approach-avoidance responses” (“Hwang” June 26, 2011, https://yoon.human.cornell.edu/research/IJCHM_Hwang_Yoong_Privacy.pdf entire issue at https://www.emerald.com/insight/publication/issn/0959-6119),
US-20170278022-A1 (“Mimassi”),
US-20190213506-A1 (“Greenberger”),
US-20190311387-A1 (“Sugaya”),
US-20140365251-A1 (“Tejima”),
US-20110246209-A1 (“Jagannathan”),
US-20110087502-A1 (“Yelton”),
US-20020122570-A1 (“Paragios”),
US-20140365251-A1 (“Tejiman”),
US-20180253671-A1 (“Kuhara”),
WO-2021220877-A1 (“Haruguchi”), and
JP-2019159953-A (“Shimanuki”).
The Following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for no art rejection:
Ishii shows using image processing to determine current occupancy of a restaurant. Future occupancy is predicted by estimating when each seat will become vacant. Although not explicitly discussed, Ishii appears to show occupancy start time information and predicted vacancy start time stored in intervals of 10 minutes. However, Ishii makes no discussion regarding limiting the time units in the prediction model.
Kawano shows using motion detection to transmit occupancy status of each seat to a server via a gateway to store and display the occupancy of a restaurant in real time. Kawano further issues time dependent coupons to optimize restaurant operation based on measured occupancy.
A. Lee shows taking reservations with a projected end time, teaching predicting when the status changes from vacancy to no vacancy (i.e. reservation start time) and when the status changes from no vacancy to vacancy (i.e. reservation end time). The wait time for a new patron is predicted. Additionally, A. Lee discloses use of a gateway in the network communications, but does not explicitly discuss the role of the gateway (i.e. A. Lee does not disclose communication between the sensors and server via the gateway).
Pinel shows using a machine learning model to train a crowdedness prediction model based on measured occupancy.
J. Lee shows use of an IOT network that detects services and transmits the sensed data to a server via a gateway. The network including a motion sensor and seat detection at a restaurant.
Hwang shows that crowdedness of a restaurant affects mood and stress levels of customers in a measurable correlation.
Mimassi shows a restaurant table vacancy prediction model based on machine learning.
Greenberger shows a system that predicts the availability of resource (i.e. tables at restaurants) based on statistical likelihood that one or more users will use the resource during a certain period of time.
Sugaya shows a prediction model which detects seat vacancy with a camera and predicts the necessary discount coupon which would fill that seat in a certain time period.
Tejima shows a vacancy rate calculation apparatus which can predict future vacancy rates based upon predicted eating time.
Jagannathan estimates customer flow and arrival times.
Yelton predicts the availability of beds in a medical facility.
Paragios shows real-time crowd density estimation from video.
Kuhara shows use of infrared motion sensors to determine occupancies of seats in a restaurant. The time interval of updating occupancy can be 5 minutes. However, Kuhara relates to enabling autonomous cleaning robot to clean unoccupied seats, focusing on determining when a previously occupied seat becomes ready (i.e. clean) for a new guest.
Haruguchi shows using a button to detect occupancy of a seat, transmitting state to a seat management server at 5 minute intervals. However, Haruguchi teaches away from using camera or motion sensors in detecting occupancy, stating that a physical button provides greater accuracy.
Shimanuki, shows detecting seat occupancy with a infrared motion sensor and updated occupancy every “few” minutes.
Generally, the closest prior art teaches either (1) a congestion model (Ishii, Kawano, A. Lee, Pinel, Hwang, Mimassi, Greenberger, Sugaya, Tejima, Jagannathan, Yelton, and Paragios), (2) a motion sensor to detect occupancy of a seat (Kawano, J. Lee, Kuhara, and Shimanuki), (3) predicting future time of congestion change (Ishii, A. Lee, Mimassi, Greenberger, and Jagannathan), or (4) use of 5-minute intervals (Kuhara, Haruguchi, and Shimanuki).
With respect to independent Claims 1 and 7-8, the closest prior art, taken individually and in an ordered combination, does not explicitly or implicitly disclose the specific ordered combination of elements. Although each of the features may be taught by the prior art of record, the claims as a whole (i.e. a motion sensor for each seat that transmits presence or absence information to a sever via a gateway, a prediction model that predicts a time when the congestion status of the facility will change using 5 minutes as the smallest unit of time, the predicted time of change includes changing from no vacancy to vacancy and changing from vacancy to no vacancy, and outputting the prediction on a display) are held to be novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Dependent Claims 2-6 depend on Claim 1, and therefore are also held to be novel and non-obvious via dependency.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5698. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:30 AM ET to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman, can be reached at telephone number (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 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626