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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 2, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
Status of Claims
In the reply filed March 2, 2026, Claims 3 and 11 have been previously canceled. Claims 15-27 have been previously withdrawn. No new claims have been added. 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 increases as the variability of the work activity 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 increases as the variability of the work activity 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:
Over a network;
To a terminal device.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“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 claim
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. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-14 as being anticipated by International Publication Number WO2021/262887A1, Christensen, et al., hereinafter Christensen is hereby withdrawn pursuant to the amendments filed on 3/2/2026.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues Independent claims 1 and 5 integrate the 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 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, but this 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 the independent claims 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. 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. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-14 as being anticipated by International Publication Number WO2021/262887A1, Christensen, et al., hereinafter Christensen is hereby withdrawn pursuant to the amendments filed on 3/2/2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Method for Optimizing Organizational Floor Layout and Operations (US 20080263491 A1) teaches analyzing an organizational floorplan layout, and making recommendations for modifying the layout to optimize productivity, and efficiency of operations conducted within the modified layout.
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