DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-22 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 10/24/2024. Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15 and 17 were amended; claims 2-4, 8-10, 14 and 18-22 were cancelled, and no claim was added in a reply filed 03/16/2025. Therefore claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, and 15-17 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2025 in regards to section 101 argument have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “recommendation values of available group seats are calculated and a predetermined number of recommended group seats are displayed on a screen of a display device based on the calculated recommendation values, as show in FIG. 7. Then a user is able to select one of the recommended group seats displayed on the screen. Therefore, the added limitations are additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.” (remarks p. 7-8). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner respectfully argues that the additional elements do not integrate the claims into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not improve the computer or a technical field. The additional elements (i.e. display device, control unit, group pattern database, a group type determination unit, a group seat recommendation unit, a recommendation value calculation unit, a recommendable seat derivation unit) are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to apply it instructions meant to apply the abstract idea on a computer and nothing more. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks p. 8, filed 03/16/2025, with respect to 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a group type determination unit”, “a recommendable seat derivation unit”, “a recommendation value calculation unit”, “a group seat recommendation unit”, “a control unit”, “a control reception unit” in claim 7; “a reception unit”, “a gap analysis unit”, “a control unit”, “a recommendation seat derivation unit”, “a reception unit”, “a recommendation value calculation unit” in claim 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a calculation value”. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to mean “a recommendation value”.
Claims 5-6 are also rejected under 112b for failing to cure the deficiency above.
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, 11-13, and 15-17 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 significantly more.
Claim 1/7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “determining a group type on the basis of name record (NR) information of a representative, the NR information including information on the representative and companions; deriving all currently recommendable group seats using group seat pattern information and seat information; calculating a recommendation value corresponding to the group type for each of the derived group seats; and displaying a predetermined number of recommended group seats on the basis of calculated result values such that the representative is able to select one of the recommended group seats displayed, wherein the group seat pattern information includes shape information of group seats, and the seat information includes information on a seat map of all seats and information on currently occupied seats, wherein the calculating a recommendation value comprises calculating the calculation value using a position value and a pattern value for each of the derived group seats, wherein the position value is calculated using a value according to a distance to an exit in a vertical direction of a corresponding seat, a value according to whether a horizontal position of the seat is a window, an aisle, or a middle seat, and a value according to a space per seat, and the pattern value is calculated using a value according to a degree of bonding between co- passengers and a value according to a degree of seat separation from other passengers.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing a human activity and mental processes. That is, the method allows for commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and concepts that are performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites “a screen of a display device”, claim 7 recites “a control unit, a reception unit, the group type determination unit, the group pattern database, an air seat database, the recommendable seat derivation unit, the recommendation value calculation unit, and the group seat recommendation unit”. Each of the additional limitations is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 5-6 and 11-12 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 1/7 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “deriving all currently recommendable group seats corresponding to a group type based on NR information of a representative, the NR information including information on the representative and companions; calculating a recommendation value for each of the derived group seats using a position value and a pattern value for each of the derived group seats; displaying a predetermined number of recommended group seats on the basis of calculated result values; receiving information on a group seat selected by the representative from the recommended group seats; comparing the information on the group seat selected by the representative with information on the recommended group seats; and adjusting at least one of the position value and the pattern value on the basis of comparison results1 wherein the adjusting at least one of the position value and the pattern value is performed such that a difference between the calculated recommendation value and a purchase probability based on actually result of purchasing a group seat of the plural representatives is reduced.”
The limitations above, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method of organizing a human activity and mental processes. That is, the method allows for commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) and concepts that are performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 13 recites “a screen of a display device”. The additional limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional element, alone or in combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements, alone or in combination, are nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a general computer.
Dependent claims 15-17 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because they further narrow the abstract idea described in relation to claim 13 without successfully integrating the exception into a practical application or providing significantly more limitations.
Conclusion
The closest prior art is Kim (US 2014/0195277). Kim is directed towards generating dynamic seating charts. It discloses providing information on a seating arrangement such as “whether the seat has special viewing or obstructed viewing, is in a covered area or an exposed area, in the shade or in direct sunlight, the distance of the seat to an exit, bathroom, concessions, parking lot, and/or other destination, how far the seat is from an aisle (e.g., expressed as a number of seats and/or in a unit of length, such as feet, meters, or yards), expected temperature at the seat during the event, within smoking or non-smoking area, in a private area such as box seating, and/or other information may be displayed as well.” However, it does not disclose “wherein the position value is calculated using a value according to a distance to an exit in a vertical direction of a corresponding seat, a value according to whether a horizontal position of the seat is a window, an aisle, or a middle seat, and a value according to a space per seat, and the pattern value is calculated using a value according to a degree of bonding between co- passengers and a value according to a degree of seat separation from other passengers.”
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 OMAR ZEROUAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7255. The examiner can normally be reached Flex schedule.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
OMAR . ZEROUAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/OMAR ZEROUAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights