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 .
Notice to Applicant
Status of Claims
In the reply filed June 25, 2026, Claims 3 and 11 have been previously canceled. Claims 15-27 have been previously withdrawn. No new claims have been added. Claims 1 and 5 have been amended. Now, Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-14 are being examined herein below.
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.
3. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-14 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 significantly more.
4. Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-14 are drawn to a method (process), which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
5. Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claims 1 recites, in part, a method comprising the following steps:
acquiring work activity data of one or more employees;
determining an optimal office layout based on the work activity data, the optimal office layout including at least a working area and a conference area;
evaluating a difference between the optimal office layout and a current office layout based on a first ratio and a second ration, wherein the first ratio is determined based on at least the working area and the conference area in the optimal office layout and the second ratio is determined based on at least a working area and a conference area in the current office layout;
dynamically determining a first threshold based on variability of the work activity data of the one or more employees, wherein the first threshold is dynamically adjusted based on analyzing the work activity data, such that an increase in the variability of the work activity data causes an increase in the first threshold, thereby requiring a greater evaluated difference to trigger generation of an office reorganization suggestion as the variability of the work activity data increases;
comparing the evaluated difference with the first threshold; and
in response to determining that the evaluated difference exceeds the dynamically determined first threshold, generating an office reorganization suggestion based on the evaluated difference and transmitting a message including the office reorganization suggestion.
These steps amount to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information (i.e. acquiring data, determining a layout, evaluating a difference, determining a threshold, comparing the difference, and generating a suggestion) in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment).
These steps are directed to acquiring work activity data of one or more employees and generating an office reorganization suggestion which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Independent claims 5 recites, in part, a method comprising the following steps:
acquiring work activity data of one or more employees;
determining an optimal layout of a virtual office based on the work activity data, the optimal layout including at least a work area and a conference area;
evaluating a difference between the optimal layout of the virtual office and a current virtual office layout based on a first ratio and a second ratio, wherein the first ratio is determined based on at least the working area and the conference area in the optimal layout of the virtual office and the second ratio is determined based on at least a working area and a conference area in the current virtual office layout;
dynamically determining a second threshold based on variability of the work activity data of the one or more employees, wherein the second threshold is dynamically adjusted based on analyzing the work activity data, such that an increase in the variability of the work activity data causes an increase in the second threshold, thereby requiring a greater evaluated difference to trigger adjustment of graphical properties of one or more representations of spaces in the current virtual office layout as the variability of the work activity data increases;
comparing the evaluated difference with the second threshold; and
in response to determining that the evaluated difference exceeds the dynamically determined second threshold, adjusting graphical properties of one or more representations of spaces in the current virtual office layout to update the current virtual office layout to the determined optimal layout.
These steps amount to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information (i.e. acquiring data and determining a layout) in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment).
These steps are directed to acquiring work activity data of one or more employees and generating an office reorganization suggestion which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
6. Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
By the processor;
Over a network;
To a terminal device.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“by the processor”, “over a network”; “to a terminal device”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (acquiring, determining, evaluating, determining, comparing and generating). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 58, 61, 206, 211, and 215 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
7. Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claim 5 is parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims
Each of these steps of the dependent claims 2, 4, 6-10, and 12-14 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1 and 5 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
For example, claim 2 sets forth:
wherein determining the optimal office layout includes: determining a work type of each employee, among the one or more employees, using the work activity data, and determining an optimal ratio for each property of office resources using a number of employees for each work type.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of acquiring work activity data of one or more employees and generating an office reorganization suggestion, which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by International Publication Number WO2021/262887A1, Christensen, et al., hereinafter Christensen.
10. Regarding claim 1, Christensen discloses a computer-implemented method for managing space of a physical office and a virtual office, the method comprising:
Acquiring, by a processor, work activity data of one or more employees, (para. 4, activity data related to work being performed in the workspace);
Determining, by a processor, an optimal office layout using the work activity data, the optimal office layout including at least a working area and a conference area (para. 4, generate layout data based on the workspace characteristic data and para. 43, layout data can include (but is not limited to) positions and parameters for work zones, aisles, as well as various elements within a space such as (but not limited to) fixtures, furniture, lighting, noise reduction structures, HVAC systems, power and connectivity wiring for the workspace, and/or other work equipment (e.g., mobile conferencing stations, coffee stations, clothing wardrobes, private lockers, etc.). );
Evaluating, by the processor, a difference between the optimal office layout and a current office layout based on a ratio and a second ration, wherein the first ratio is determined based on at least the working area and the conference area in the optimal office layout and the second ratio is determined based on at least a working area and a conference area in the current office layout, (para. 4, analyze the received workspace data to determine workspace characteristics data, where the workspace characteristics data includes: physical space data related to physical features in the workspace; work mode data related to types of work performed by users in the workspace; and user data related to individual users working in the workspace, para. 32, there are numerous configurations of space layouts, including, but not limited to, those indicating work modes, assignments of users to workspaces/workzones, time scheduling, and/or any other configuration as appropriate to the requirements of a given application, and para. 73, . The system can generate 630 a visual output that can be periodically updated/adapted. The visual output can include layout data with workspace design specifications which can include work zone locations within a workspace, user passes thru work zones, user to work zone assignments, work mode assignments (e.g., standing desk, hot desk, unassigned desk, reserved desk, among others) for work zones, and/or other design specifications and floorplan modifications. In many embodiments, the output can be a visual design of a workspace that includes working modes, types, sizes, location of the work zones within the space, passes from/to the entrance(s) and exit(s) of the workspace to the work zones within the space, and passes between the work zones in the space. In many embodiments, an output can be periodically updated or new information can be obtained (e.g., analysis of activity data indicates that several users should be working together on a project and thus their seats should be rearranged), whereby the workspace can be reconfigured/adapted accordingly (e.g., desks moved, furniture rearranged, users/employees reassigned to different locations among others), and thus new sensor data for the new configuration can be used by various optimization processes related to the workspace to monitor how the newly adapted configuration is performing relative to various different metrics (e.g., productivity, user satisfaction, among others)). The ratio defined in Applicant’s specification is referenced to the number of employees in a given space, this is analogous to Christensen in using the metrics of employees assigned to a specific location.;
dynamically determining, by the processor, a first threshold based on variability of the work activity data of the one or more employees, wherein the first threshold is dynamically adjusted by the processor based on analyzing the work activity data, such that an increase in the variability of the work activity data causes an increase in the first threshold, thereby requiring a greater evaluated difference to trigger generation of an office reorganization suggestion as the variability of the work activity data increases (para. 44, generated for a re-design of an existing space and/or as plans for a new space, para. 51, processes can determine when a current layout (or parameters of that layout) no longer meets certain criteria or thresholds, and can evaluate layouts and/or space characteristics to determine whether to provide new layout recommendations and/or instructions to modify parameters or positions of elements of the layout design and para. 68, Layout evaluation engines in accordance with several embodiments of the invention can evaluate generated layout data. In a number of embodiments, existing layouts can be evaluated to determine whether changes should be made (e.g., when a score for a layout does not exceed a given threshold). Layout evaluation engines in accordance with various embodiments of the invention can predict or estimate the performance of a layout across various metrics, such as user satisfaction, occupancy, among others);
comparing, by the processor, the evaluated difference with the first threshold, (para. 68, Layout evaluation engines in accordance with several embodiments of the invention can evaluate generated layout data. In a number of embodiments, existing layouts can be evaluated to determine whether changes should be made (e.g., when a score for a layout does not exceed a given threshold). Layout evaluation engines in accordance with various embodiments of the invention can predict or estimate the performance of a layout across various metrics, such as user satisfaction, occupancy, among others); and
in response to determining that the evaluated difference exceeds the dynamically determined first threshold, generating by the processor an office reorganization suggestion based on the evaluated difference and transmitting, over a network, a message including the office reorganization suggestion to a terminal device, (para. 4, generate a visual output that provides the design specifications including positions for the several work zones and the target work mode for each work zone in the workspace based on the generated layout data; receive new workspace data for a new time period after the first time period; and generate at least one update for the generated visual output based on the new workspace data, para. 48, processes can provide notifications as output, such as (but not limited to) alarms, instructions to modify a zone and/or space, recommended allocations of work zones to users, among others, para. 51, processes can determine when a current layout (or parameters of that layout) no longer meets certain criteria or thresholds, and can evaluate layouts and/or space characteristics to determine whether to provide new layout recommendations and/or instructions to modify parameters or positions of elements of the layout design. In a variety of embodiments, when processes assess that the workspace layout or/and other parameters becomes different from the actually implemented layout and/or expected parameters, the system indicates this to users of the system, providing them with the actionable insights on system outputs and controlled parameters. In various embodiments, processes can continuously track work mode(s) of the individual workspace users or a team and can recommend (e.g., in real- time and/or as a summary recommendation over time period) specific work zones which might be optimal for implementation of the current work or prevalent work modes, as well as locations of such work zones in the workspace, para. 59, Adaptive layout element 400 can utilize network interface 415 to transmit and receive data over a network based upon the instructions performed by processor, and para. 68, Layout evaluation engines in accordance with several embodiments of the invention can evaluate generated layout data. In a number of embodiments, existing layouts can be evaluated to determine whether changes should be made (e.g., when a score for a layout does not exceed a given threshold). Layout evaluation engines in accordance with various embodiments of the invention can predict or estimate the performance of a layout across various metrics, such as user satisfaction, occupancy, among others, para. 70, can provide a variety of outputs to a user, including (but not limited to) floor plans, renderings, notifications, alerts, charts, reports, and/or control signals.).
11. Regarding claim 2, Christensen discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Christensen further discloses wherein determining the optimal office layout includes:
determining a work type of each employee, among the one or more employees, using the work activity data, (para. 12, work mode data related to types of work performed by users in the space), and
determining an optimal ratio for each property of office resources using a number of employees for each work type, (para. 45, optimizations include optimizing the number of workspace users allocated to a workspace, maximizing utilization rates, optimizing for a weighted balance of multiple objectives, among others. Examples of constraints in accordance with a number of embodiments of the invention can include (but are not limited to) a minimum number of users served, a maximum budget, a desk space requirement, aisle widths, accessibility, power/network outlet proximity, etc.).
12. Regarding claim 4, Christensen discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Christensen further discloses wherein the optimal office layout and the current office layout are for the virtual office, (para. 51, processes can continuously track work mode(s) of the individual workspace users or a team and can recommend (e.g., in real- time and/or as a summary recommendation over time period) specific work zones which might be optimal for implementation of the current work or prevalent work modes, as well as locations of such work zones in the workspace.).
13. Regarding claim 5, Christensen discloses a computer-implemented method for managing space of a physical office and a virtual office, the method comprising:
Acquiring, by a processor, work activity data of one or more employees, (para. 4, activity data related to work being performed in the workspace);
Determining, by the processor, an optimal layout of a virtual office based on the work activity data, the optimal layout including at least a work area and a conference area, (para. 4, generate layout data based on the workspace characteristic data, para. 43, layout data can include (but is not limited to) positions and parameters for work zones, aisles, as well as various elements within a space such as (but not limited to) fixtures, furniture, lighting, noise reduction structures, HVAC systems, power and connectivity wiring for the workspace, and/or other work equipment (e.g., mobile conferencing stations, coffee stations, clothing wardrobes, private lockers, etc.));
evaluating a difference between the optimal layout of the virtual office and a current virtual office layout based on a first ratio and a second ratio, wherein the first ratio is determined based on at least the working area and the conference area in the optimal layout of the virtual office and the second ratio is determined based on at least a working area and a conference area in the current virtual office layout, (para. 4, analyze the received workspace data to determine workspace characteristics data, where the workspace characteristics data includes: physical space data related to physical features in the workspace; work mode data related to types of work performed by users in the workspace; and user data related to individual users working in the workspace, para. 32, there are numerous configurations of space layouts, including, but not limited to, those indicating work modes, assignments of users to workspaces/workzones, time scheduling, and/or any other configuration as appropriate to the requirements of a given application, para. 51, processes can determine when a current layout (or parameters of that layout) no longer meets certain criteria or thresholds, and can evaluate layouts and/or space characteristics to determine whether to provide new layout recommendations and/or instructions to modify parameters or positions of elements of the layout design and para. 68, Layout evaluation engines in accordance with several embodiments of the invention can evaluate generated layout data. In a number of embodiments, existing layouts can be evaluated to determine whether changes should be made (e.g., when a score for a layout does not exceed a given threshold). Layout evaluation engines in accordance with various embodiments of the invention can predict or estimate the performance of a layout across various metrics, such as user satisfaction, occupancy, among others, para. 73, . The system can generate 630 a visual output that can be periodically updated/adapted. The visual output can include layout data with workspace design specifications which can include work zone locations within a workspace, user passes thru work zones, user to work zone assignments, work mode assignments (e.g., standing desk, hot desk, unassigned desk, reserved desk, among others) for work zones, and/or other design specifications and floorplan modifications. In many embodiments, the output can be a visual design of a workspace that includes working modes, types, sizes, location of the work zones within the space, passes from/to the entrance(s) and exit(s) of the workspace to the work zones within the space, and passes between the work zones in the space. In many embodiments, an output can be periodically updated or new information can be obtained (e.g., analysis of activity data indicates that several users should be working together on a project and thus their seats should be rearranged), whereby the workspace can be reconfigured/adapted accordingly (e.g., desks moved, furniture rearranged, users/employees reassigned to different locations among others), and thus new sensor data for the new configuration can be used by various optimization processes related to the workspace to monitor how the newly adapted configuration is performing relative to various different metrics (e.g., productivity, user satisfaction, among others)). The ratio defined in Applicant’s specification is referenced to the number of employees in a given space, this is analogous to Christensen in using the metrics of employees assigned to a specific location.;
dynamically determining, by the processor, a second threshold based on variability of the work activity data of the one or more employees, wherein the second threshold is dynamically adjusted by the processor based on analyzing the work activity data, such that an increase in the variability of the work activity data causes an increase in the second threshold, thereby requiring a greater evaluated difference to trigger adjustment of graphical properties of one or more representations of spaces in the current virtual office layout as the variability of the work activity data increases (para. 51, processes can determine when a current layout (or parameters of that layout) no longer meets certain criteria or thresholds, and can evaluate layouts and/or space characteristics to determine whether to provide new layout recommendations and/or instructions to modify parameters or positions of elements of the layout design and para. 68, Layout evaluation engines in accordance with several embodiments of the invention can evaluate generated layout data. In a number of embodiments, existing layouts can be evaluated to determine whether changes should be made (e.g., when a score for a layout does not exceed a given threshold). Layout evaluation engines in accordance with various embodiments of the invention can predict or estimate the performance of a layout across various metrics, such as user satisfaction, occupancy, among others);
comparing the evaluated difference with the second threshold, (para. 51, processes can determine when a current layout (or parameters of that layout) no longer meets certain criteria or thresholds, and can evaluate layouts and/or space characteristics to determine whether to provide new layout recommendations and/or instructions to modify parameters or positions of elements of the layout design and para. 68, Layout evaluation engines in accordance with several embodiments of the invention can evaluate generated layout data. In a number of embodiments, existing layouts can be evaluated to determine whether changes should be made (e.g., when a score for a layout does not exceed a given threshold). Layout evaluation engines in accordance with various embodiments of the invention can predict or estimate the performance of a layout across various metrics, such as user satisfaction, occupancy, among others); and
in response to determining that the evaluated difference exceeds the dynamically determined second threshold, adjusting, by the processor, graphical properties of the one or more representations of spaces in the the current virtual office layout to update the current virtual office layout to the determined optimal layout, (para. 4, generate a visual output that provides the design specifications including positions for the several work zones and the target work mode for each work zone in the workspace based on the generated layout data; receive new workspace data for a new time period after the first time period; and generate at least one update for the generated visual output based on the new workspace data, para. 46, generating layout data comprises generating a database of required work zones that can optimally support prevalent work modes (e.g., as identified in the space characteristic data) and/or occupancy. Design to support work modes in accordance with a number of embodiments of the invention can be based on activity-based workspace design principles, which provide proven efficiency. In certain embodiments, work zones (e.g., size, type, design, number, among others) can be designated for a layout based on activity data and/or feedback data from users of a space, para. 48, Outputs in accordance with certain embodiments of the invention can include visual floor plans, 3D visual floorplans, renderings, reports, and/or charts…..processes can provide notifications as output, such as (but not limited to) alarms, instructions to modify a zone and/or space, recommended allocations of work zones to users, among others, para. 51, processes can determine when a current layout (or parameters of that layout) no longer meets certain criteria or thresholds, and can evaluate layouts and/or space characteristics to determine whether to provide new layout recommendations and/or instructions to modify parameters or positions of elements of the layout design. In a variety of embodiments, when processes assess that the workspace layout or/and other parameters becomes different from the actually implemented layout and/or expected parameters, the system indicates this to users of the system, providing them with the actionable insights on system outputs and controlled parameters. In various embodiments, processes can continuously track work mode(s) of the individual workspace users or a team and can recommend (e.g., in real- time and/or as a summary recommendation over time period) specific work zones which might be optimal for implementation of the current work or prevalent work modes, as well as locations of such work zones in the workspace, para. 59, Adaptive layout element 400 can utilize network interface 415 to transmit and receive data over a network based upon the instructions performed by processor and para. 68, Layout evaluation engines in accordance with several embodiments of the invention can evaluate generated layout data. In a number of embodiments, existing layouts can be evaluated to determine whether changes should be made (e.g., when a score for a layout does not exceed a given threshold). Layout evaluation engines in accordance with various embodiments of the invention can predict or estimate the performance of a layout across various metrics, such as user satisfaction, occupancy, among others, and para. 70, can provide a variety of outputs to a user, including (but not limited to) floor plans, renderings, notifications, alerts, charts, reports, and/or control signals). The 3D visual floor plan in Christensen is analogous to a virtual layout, as virtual layouts of floorplans are typically shown in a three dimensional format.
14. Regarding claim 6, Christensen discloses the method of claim 5 as described above. Christensen further discloses wherein the work activity data comprises physical office resource utilization data and work tool use data, (para. 45, workspace utilization, occupancy, user satisfaction, and/or productivity. Examples of optimizations include optimizing the number of workspace users allocated to a workspace, maximizing utilization rates, optimizing for a weighted balance of multiple objectives).
15. Regarding claim 7, Christensen discloses the method of claims 5 and 6 as described above. Christensen further discloses wherein determining the optimal layout of the virtual office includes:
determining a quantity of each resource disposed in the virtual office using the physical office resource utilization data, (para. 7, monitor a metric related to a particular objective, where the objective is at least one of workspace utilization, occupancy, and user satisfaction; and updating the generated visual output when the metric fails to satisfy a criteria), and
determining properties of each resource disposed in the virtual office using the work tool use data, (para. 7, monitor a metric related to a particular objective, where the objective is at least one of workspace utilization, occupancy, and user satisfaction; and updating the generated visual output when the metric fails to satisfy a criteria).
16. Regarding claim 8, Christensen discloses the method of claims 5-7 as described above. Christensen further discloses wherein determining the properties of each resource disposed in the virtual office includes:
determining a work type for each employee, among the one or more employees, using the work tool use data of each employee, (para. 12, work mode data related to types of work performed by users in the space),
aggregating a number of employees for each work type, (para. 73, whereby the workspace can be reconfigured/adapted accordingly (e.g., desks moved, furniture rearranged, users/employees reassigned to different locations among others), and thus new sensor data for the new configuration can be used by various optimization processes related to the workspace to monitor how the newly adapted configuration is performing relative to various different metrics (e.g., productivity, user satisfaction, among others). For example, if the system detects user flow traffic through a particular pass within the work environment that is overly congested, the system can reconfigure the layout to reduce the traffic by specifying modified and/or new passes, rearranging work zones, including furniture and employee desks, among other reconfigurations in order to provide a better working environment), and
determining the properties of each resource using a result of the aggregation, (para. 73, whereby the workspace can be reconfigured/adapted accordingly (e.g., desks moved, furniture rearranged, users/employees reassigned to different locations among others), and thus new sensor data for the new configuration can be used by various optimization processes related to the workspace to monitor how the newly adapted configuration is performing relative to various different metrics (e.g., productivity, user satisfaction, among others). For example, if the system detects user flow traffic through a particular pass within the work environment that is overly congested, the system can reconfigure the layout to reduce the traffic by specifying modified and/or new passes, rearranging work zones, including furniture and employee desks, among other reconfigurations in order to provide a better working environment).
17. Regarding claim 9, Christensen discloses the method of claims 5-8 as described above. Christensen further discloses wherein determining the properties of each resource using the result of the aggregation includes determining an object to be added-on to each resource using the result of the aggregation, (para. 72, In many embodiments, a system for adaptive layout generation can continuously monitor a workspace environment using several different types of sensors and generate and/or update an implemented layout design, including work zones, passes, worker modes, among various other floor plan design and feature specifications based on various optimization processes that can be applied to changing work habits and needs of a workplace environment. Fig. 6 illustrates a system for continuous monitoring and updating a workspace environment in accordance with an embodiment of the invention.).
18. Regarding claim 10, Christensen discloses the method of claims 5 and 6 as described above. Christensen further discloses wherein the work activity data further comprises activity data of the one or more employees in the virtual office, (para. 73, an output can be periodically updated or new information can be obtained (e.g., analysis of activity data indicates that several users should be working together on a project and thus their seats should be rearranged)).
19. Regarding claim 12, Christensen discloses the method of claims 5 and 11 as described above. Christensen further discloses wherein updating the current virtual office layout with the determined optimal layout includes:
updating a layout for a public space among determined layouts with a first cycle, (para. 4, receive workspace data for a first time period relating to the workspace…receive new workspace data for a new time period after the first time period, and para. 51, processes can continuously track work mode(s) of the individual workspace users or a team and can recommend (e.g., in real- time and/or as a summary recommendation over time period) specific work zones which might be optimal for implementation of the current work or prevalent work modes, as well as locations of such work zones in the workspace); and
updating a layout for a personal space among the determined layouts with a second cycle longer than the first cycle, (para. 71, a system for adaptive layout generation can continuously monitor a workspace environment using several different types of sensors and generate and/or update an implemented layout design).
20. Regarding claim 13, Christensen discloses the method of claims 5 and 11 as described above. Christensen further discloses wherein updating the current virtual office layout with the determined optimal layout includes:
updating a layout for a public space among determined layouts in response to occurrence of a predetermined event, (para. 71, a system for adaptive layout generation can continuously monitor a workspace environment using several different types of sensors and generate and/or update an implemented layout design); and
updating a layout for a personal space among the determined layouts with a second cycle, (para. 71, a system for adaptive layout generation can continuously monitor a workspace environment using several different types of sensors and generate and/or update an implemented layout design, including work zones, passes, worker modes, among various other floor plan design and feature specifications based on various optimization processes that can be applied to changing work habits and needs of a workplace environment).
21. Regarding claim 14, Christensen discloses the method of claim 5 as described above. Christensen further discloses wherein determining the optimal layout of the virtual office includes:
acquiring a layout of a physical office corresponding to the virtual office, (para. 3, CAD (computer-aided design) category and generative-design category. Such systems provide assistance to human operators (workspace designers), and some of these systems perform or attempt to perform all of the workspace design functions and steps autonomously, and para. 28, CAFM and IWMS components (CAFM - Computer Aided Facility management, IWMS - integrated workplace management system). While existing CAFM and IWMS solutions rely on human inputs and human decisions to provide for employee to workspace assignment, solutions in accordance with various embodiments of the invention can introduce automated and adaptive employee to workspace assignment); and
adjusting the acquired layout of the physical office using the work activity data to determine an adjusted layout of the physical office as the optimal layout of the virtual office, (para. 29, layouts and/or usage optimization that can adapt to changes in user behaviors and environmental conditions and para. 68, existing layouts can be evaluated to determine whether changes should be made (e.g., when a score for a layout does not exceed a given threshold). Layout evaluation engines in accordance with various embodiments of the invention can predict or estimate the performance of a layout across various metrics, such as user satisfaction, occupancy, among others. In several embodiments, layout evaluation engines can include machine learning models to evaluate layout data).
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed June 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that Independent claims 1 and 5 integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. These claims recite limitations that do not amount to significantly more. The structural elements of the present application as written in the independent claims (i.e. a processor, a network, and a terminal device) are used as tools to perform an existing business process and do not improve upon a technology, technological field or computer-related technology which is considered a concept performed in the human mind, (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). A concept performed in the human mind and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people falls within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Mental Processes/Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. The structural elements as claimed are for mere convenience, there is no improvement to the function of the computer. The data that is being acquired, determining an optimal layout, evaluating the difference between an optimal layout and current layout, determining a threshold of work activity data, comparing the evaluated difference with the threshold and generating an office reorganization suggestion could be performed manually or observed with a human eye. As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated in the 2014 IEG as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and "those that integrate the building blocks into something more…the latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible". This framework found that the claims do tie up the exception.
Thus, the claims do not recite additional limitations that integrate the exception into a Practical Application.
B. Applicant argues that independent claims 1 and 5 provide an inventive concept.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for an alleged application of an abstract idea to be considered eligible, it must amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e., pass step 2B of the Mayo test). As shown in the rejection above, the application of the abstract idea recited merely applies the idea in a generic computer environment (computer-implemented method) using generic computer functions (acquiring data, determining a layout, evaluating a difference, determining a threshold, comparing the difference, and generating a suggestion). The structural elements of the present application (i.e. processor, network and terminal device) are used as tools to perform an existing business process and do not improve upon a technology, technological field or computer-related technology. Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
C. After further search and consideration, the above cited reference, Christensen, teaches on the limitations of the claims. See the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
AUTOMATED LAYOUT GENERATION (US 20170076016 A1) teaches generation of layouts for spaces. User defined parameters are entered and, based on the user inputs and the system configuration, a layout for the space is provided.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber A. Misiaszek whose telephone number is (571) 270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4, every other Friday Off.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) computer-accessible medium. 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 computer-accessible medium, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR computer-accessible medium, 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 computer-accessible medium, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
