CTNF 18/129,301 CTNF 79257 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. 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. Status of the Claims The pending claims in the present application are original claims 1-20 filed on 31 March 2023. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31 March 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 1-7 and 15-20 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 8-14 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106. Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) The “method” of claims 1-7 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101, and the “system” of claims 15-20 constitutes a machine under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 15-20 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. Claims 1-7 and 15-20, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below. But before further addressing claims 1-7 and 15-20 and the subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, claims 8-14 will be addressed. Regarding claims 8-14 and Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claims fail to meet the criteria of Step 1 because the claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Per the Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media Memorandum of January 26, 2010, the claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claims, drawn to a “computer program product comprising: a computer readable storage medium,” covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media (or “computer readable storage medium,” as claimed), particularly when the specification, as in the present application, only disclaims specific types of transitory signals per se instead of all transitory signals per se. ( See MPEP 2111.01, and para. [0084] of the applicant’s specification.) When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se , the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. ( See In re Nuijten , 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101 , Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.) Claims, such as claims 8-14, drawn to such a storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments, may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. ( Cf. Animals - Patentability , 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101).) Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se . The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. ( See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp. , 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).) But claims 8-14, in their present form, fail to meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. It is possible that even if claims 8-14 are amended to recite “non-transitory,” the claims still may not meet the criteria for patent eligibility for the reasons claims 1-7 and 15-20 fail to meet the criteria. Those reasons are outlined in the paragraphs below. Turning back now to claims 1-7 and 15-20, the next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below. In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations: “A method comprising: receiving ... one or more requests for scheduling meetings of individuals in a group meeting in a determined meeting room; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes “... detecting ... a first group meeting request and a second group meeting request scheduled for the same meeting room in succession; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes “... gathering ... information about participants of at least the first group meeting, and determining one or more relationships between one or more participants of the first group meeting and non-participants of the first group meeting, and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes “... for each relationship, determining an associated physical distance measure between the participants of the relationship; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes “... computing ... based on the determined one or more relationships and associated physical distance measures, a level of risk score representing a risk of illness or dirtiness; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes “... determining ... an amount of time required for the meeting room to become clean between the first meeting and second meeting based on the level of risk score; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes “... scheduling a break of the determined amount of time between the first group meeting and second group meeting at the meeting room.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes The above-listed limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, in association with scheduling meetings in, and scheduling cleaning for, meeting rooms, which falls under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “receiving,” “detecting,” and “gathering” steps), and evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (e.g., the recited “determining,” “computing,” and “scheduling” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis. In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations: The claimed “receiving” takes place “at a hardware processor of a computing system” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h) The claimed “detecting” is “by the hardware processors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h) The claimed “gathering” takes place “at the hardware processors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h) The claimed “computing” is “by the hardware processors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h) The claimed “determining” is “by the hardware processors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h) The claimed “scheduling” is “automatically” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h) The above-listed additional element limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, mere automation of manual processes, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis. The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting. Regarding claims 2-7, the claims depend from claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “wherein the computed level of risk score is further based on a participant's characteristics information, said gathered information further comprising the participant's characteristics information, wherein the participant's characteristics information comprises one or more of: a health condition of the participant; a current illness or sick day of the participant; a detected recent vacation abroad by the participant; and a degree to which the participants have recently been physically in close contact with each other” of claim 2, the “wherein the computed level of risk score is further based on features of the meeting room, said gathered information further comprising the features of the meeting room, said features of the meeting room comprising one or more of: physical elements of the meeting room that invite physical contact of participants; and a layout of the meeting room defining whether or not the participants are likely or able to locate spread out or cluster within the meeting room” of claim 3, the ”determining ... a contact risk level score for a participant, the contact risk level score based on relationships between the participants in a same or different group, the determined associated physical distances between participant's and the participant's characteristics; and determining ... a meeting room level risk score based on a sum of weighted contact risk level scores of all participants of the same or different group” of claim 4, the “computing ... a group-to-group level risk score based on a degree of overlapping and non-overlapping participants in the first group meeting and second group meeting; and modifying ... the meeting room level of risk score based on the computed group-to-group score” of claim 5, the “scheduling, ... for the break, an active manual physical cleaning of the meeting room, an ... cleaning of the meeting room, or a cleaning by a period of non-use of the meeting room” of claim 6, and the “tracking ... a current presence of the participants and actions of the participants at the time of the first group meeting; and modifying ... said level of risk score based on a current absence or current action of the participant” of claim 7). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “by the hardware processor ... by the hardware processor” of claim 4, the “by the hardware processor ... by the hardware processor” of claim 5, the “by the hardware processor ... autonomous” of claim 6, and the “by an identification system ... by the hardware processor” of claim 7). Accordingly, claims 2-7 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101. Regarding claims 15-20, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-7, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-7. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-7 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 15-20. Claims 15-20 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0083932 A1 to Yan et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Yan”), in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2025/0111317 A1 to Izod et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Izod”), and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0290807 A1 to Chaurasia et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Chaurasia”) . Regarding claim 1, Yan discloses the following limitations: “A method comprising: receiving, at a hardware processor of a computing system, one or more requests for scheduling meetings of individuals in a group meeting in a determined meeting room; ...” - Yan discloses, “operation 102 may also include receiving a request to schedule a meeting (i.e., an event) in a given room (i.e., a location)” (para. [0017]), “at operation 102, a request to schedule a 30-person meeting (a predicted event with 30 attendees) may be identified” (para. [0020]), and “Referring now to FIG. 6, shown is a high-level block diagram of an example computer system 600 that may be configured to perform various aspects of the present disclosure, including, for example, methods 100, 400 and 500. The example computer system 600 may be used in implementing one or more of the methods or modules, and any related functions or operations, described herein (e.g., using one or more processor circuits or computer processors of the computer)” (para. [0053]). Steps, including, receiving, at the processors of computers, requests for scheduling meetings of groups of attendees to take place in given rooms, in Yan, reads on the recited limitation. The combination of Yan and Izod (hereinafter referred to as “Yan/Izod”) teaches limitations below of claim 1 that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Yan: “... detecting, by the hardware processor, a first group meeting request and a second group meeting request scheduled for the same meeting room in succession; ...” - See the aspects of Yan that have been cited above. Yan also discloses, “region 200 may only include a single location (such as, for example, conference room 204)” (para. [0027]). Receiving (during continuous operation), by the processors of computers, requests for meetings of attendees, in Yan, reads on the recited “detecting, by the hardware processor, a first group meeting request and a second group meeting request” limitation. Izod discloses, “The processor unit instructs 735 the meeting room booking system to change its rules to increase the vacancy gap following meetings with 5 people or more from 15 minutes to 30 minutes” (para. [0118]), and “HSMS notifies meeting room booking system to extend stipulated gap between meetings with 5 persons or more in Room A to 30 minutes” (FIG. 6 (Continued)). The meetings in Room A that are separated by the stipulated gap, in Izod, reads on the recited “scheduled for the same meeting room in succession” limitation. Izod discloses, “measuring specified health risks to people within a building or other enclosed environment, leading to operation of mitigating actions” (para. [0001]), similar to the claimed invention and to Yan. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the scheduling of the meeting room, in Yan, to permit scheduling meetings in the meeting room in succession, as in Izod, to accommodate more meetings in the room in a safe manner, per Izod (para. [0118] and FIG. 6). The combination of Yan, Izod, and Chaurasia (hereinafter referred to as “Yan/Izod/Chaurasia”) teaches limitations below of claim 1 that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Yan/Izod: “... gathering, at the hardware processor, information about participants of at least the first group meeting, and determining one or more relationships between one or more participants of the first group meeting and non-participants of the first group meeting, and ...” - See the aspects of Yan that have been cited above. Yan also discloses, “Personnel risk characteristics 304 include a number of attendees 310. Number of attendees 310 may be determined based upon observation via one or more sensors (e.g., a camera may detect three people entering a location) or from a scheduling system (e.g., a user may attempt to schedule a meeting for 3 attendees at the location). In some embodiments, personnel risk characteristics 304 may be further calculated based upon an individual risk of the attendees 312, such as a likelihood that one or more of the attendees is contagious (determined based upon observation of visitors exhibiting behaviors such as coughing, sneezing, etc.)” (para. [0039]). Gathering, at the processors, information about attendees of the scheduled meeting (including likelihood of the attendees being contagious), in Yan, reads on the recited “gathering, at the hardware processor, information about participants of at least the first group meeting” limitation. Chaurasia discloses, “maintaining a predetermined distance between people (also known as social distancing) may help prevent the spread of illness. This may help reduce or limit the spread of the illness from symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers. FIG. 12 is an illustrative block diagram of a system 500 for detecting if occupants of a building or space are following social distancing guidelines or if they are engaging in behaviors that may be deemed risky in a particular environment. The building or space may be a commercial office building, a factory, a hotel, a hospital, restaurants, shopping centers, moving vehicles (e.g., buses, trains, planes, etc.) and/or any other space. The system 500 may be a stand-alone system or may be incorporated into or used with other systems such as the building control system 12 described herein. Generally, the system 500 analyze the distance between people along with the behavior of the people to determine if the people are standing too close or engaging in other risky behavior, such as, but not limited to, failure to wear the appropriate PPE” (para. [0168]), and “The social distancing module 512 may calculate the number of people in the frame, the number of people adhering to the social distancing guidelines (e.g., spaced at least the threshold distance from one another), the number of people who are not in compliance with the social distancing guidelines (e.g., spaced at less than the threshold distance from one another), etc. to generate a risky behavior metric” (para. [0172]). Detecting whether occupants of other spaces (like hotels and restaurants) followed social distancing guidelines or not, or engaged in other risky behavior, in Chaurasia, when applied in the context of the attendees of meetings in the meeting rooms, in Yan, reads on the recited “determining one or more relationships between one or more participants of the first group meeting and non-participants of the first group meeting” limitation. “... for each relationship, determining an associated physical distance measure between the participants of the relationship; ...” - See the aspects of Chaurasia that have been cited above. For the behaviors of each of the occupants relative to the other occupants, determining whether social distancing guidelines were followed or not based on spacing of occupants relative to each other, in Chaurasia, reads on the recited limitation. “... computing, by the hardware processor, based on the determined one or more relationships and associated physical distance measures, a level of risk score representing a risk of illness or dirtiness; ...” - See the aspects of Yan and Chaurasia that have been cited above. Computing, by the processors, in Yan, based on the determined social distancing relationships and measures between occupants, the risky behavior metrics for the occupants (indicative of risk of spreading illness), in Chaurasia, reads on the recited limitation. Chaurasia discloses, “monitoring the health of people in buildings and/or public spaces” (para. [0002]), similar to the claimed invention and to Yan and Izod. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the personnel risk information, of Yan, to include information about social distancing and other potentially risky behaviors, in other buildings and public spaces, as in Chaurasia, to provide more accurate metrics about risky behavior, per Chaurasia (para. [0172]). Yan/Izod/Chaurasia also teaches the limitations below of claim 1: “... determining, by the hardware processor, an amount of time required for the meeting room to become clean between the first meeting and second meeting based on the level of risk score; and ...” - See the aspects of Yan, Izod, and Chaurasia that have been cited above. Izod also discloses, “the external environmental information 40 indicates that there is a Covid-19 pandemic, and this causes a risk modifier to be applied 4B, 705, reducing the tolerance of the processor unit 10 for detection of elevated risks” (para. [0115]), and “it identifies that the ventilation system, even when operating a maximum level, is not sufficient to avoid the risk level from becoming elevated when there are 5 people or more in the meeting room for 1 hour or more, even when the door is kept open during the meeting. In addition, if it is found that the CO2 levels do not subside after such a meeting within 15 minutes of it finishing. The processor unit instructs 735 the meeting room booking system to change its rules to increase the vacancy gap following meetings with 5 people or more from 15 minutes to 30 minutes. Further monitoring and workflow following this rule change will then assess whether 30 minutes is sufficient, or whether any further rule changes in the meeting room booking system are required” (para. [0118]). Determining, by the processors, in Yan, the vacancy gap for the meeting room that is sufficient to avoid elevated risk levels, in Izod, taking into consideration the risky behavior metrics, in Chaurasia, reads on the recited limitation. The above-provided rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, also apply for purposes of rejecting this limitation. “... automatically scheduling a break of the determined amount of time between the first group meeting and second group meeting at the meeting room.” - See the aspects of Izod that have been cited above. The system scheduling the vacancy gap between scheduled meetings in the same meeting room, in Izod, reads on the recited limitation. The above-provided rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, also apply for purposes of rejecting this limitation. Regarding claim 2, Yan/Izod/Chaurasia teaches the following limitations: “The method of claim 1, wherein the computed level of risk score is further based on a participant's characteristics information, said gathered information further comprising the participant's characteristics information, wherein the participant's characteristics information comprises one or more of: a health condition of the participant; a current illness or sick day of the participant; a detected recent vacation abroad by the participant; and a degree to which the participants have recently been physically in close contact with each other.” - See the aspects of Yan and Chaurasia that have been cited above. The personnel risk characteristics, in Yan, including the risky behavior metric being based on information about occupants, including the degree to which the occupants have recently been physically in close contact with each other in other buildings or spaces, in Chaurasia, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 2. Regarding claim 3, Yan/Izod/Chaurasia teaches the following limitations: “The method of claim 1, wherein the computed level of risk score is further based on features of the meeting room, said gathered information further comprising the features of the meeting room, said features of the meeting room comprising one or more of: physical elements of the meeting room that invite physical contact of participants; and a layout of the meeting room defining whether or not the participants are likely or able to locate spread out or cluster within the meeting room.” - See the aspects of Yan that have been cited above. Yan also discloses, “Location risk characteristics 302 include a layout of the location 306. The layout may include, for example, a number of doors, a size of the location, a volume of the location, a number of walls, an air turnover time, a number of vents, an air flow rate” (para. [0038]). The location risk characteristics of the meeting room, including the physical layout of the meeting room, in terms of size, volume, walls, and the like, in Yan, reads on the recited limitation. Regarding claim 4, Yan/Izod/Chaurasia teaches the following limitations: “The method of claim 3, further comprising: determining, by the hardware processor, a contact risk level score for a participant, the contact risk level score based on relationships between the participants in a same or different group, the determined associated physical distances between participant's and the participant's characteristics; and ...” - See the aspects of Yan and Chaurasia that have been cited above. Determining, by the processors, the personnel risk characteristics, in Yan, including the risky behavior metrics associated with social distancing between occupants, in Chaurasia, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 4. “... determining, by the hardware processor, a meeting room level risk score based on a sum of weighted contact risk level scores of all participants of the same or different group.” - See the aspects of Yan, Izod, and Chaurasia that have been cited above. Yan also discloses, “the location risk characteristics and personnel risk characteristics may be weighted differently from one another, they may be added instead of multiplied” (para. [0021]), and “a system performing method 500 may adjust a relative weight of location risk characteristics used in calculating event risk” (para. [0052]). Izod also discloses, “The ratings for the individual internal risk factors are then weighted and combined to calculate an overall technical healthiness rating for the space or premises as a whole. For example, this may be done by weighting the contribution of the individual percentages and then summing them in order to calculate an overall percentage. The weightings for the ratings of each internal risk factor may be modified by the external risk factors, the risk modifiers or the rating modifiers. For example, the presence of a pandemic with high levels of local infection rates may be used to increase the weighting for the internal risk factor related to people density and dwell time in confined spaces” (para. [0096]). Chaurasia also discloses, “the controller 102 may determine if the particular occupant is displaying one or more symptoms of the illness, as shown at block 420. When the symptom detection module 402 detects a symptom, the symptom detection module 402 may assign a number or a weight to the symptom in order to detect the presence and/or severity of an illness 420” (para. [0157]). Determining, by the processors, the location risk characteristics, based on weights applied to personnel, in Yan, the technical healthiness ratings, based on weighted ratings associated with occupants, in Izod, and the indications of illness, based on weighted symptoms found in occupants, in Chaurasia, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 4. Regarding claim 5, Yan/Izod/Chaurasia teaches the following limitations: “The method of claim 4, further comprising: computing, by the hardware processor, a group-to-group level risk score based on a degree of overlapping and non-overlapping participants in the first group meeting and second group meeting; and ...” - See the aspects of Yan, Izod, and Chaurasia that have been cited above. Computing, by the processors, the personnel and location risk characteristics for attendees of multiple meetings, in Yan, the technical healthiness ratings, in Izod, and the likelihood of symptoms of occupants, in Chaurasia, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 5. “... modifying, by the hardware processor, the meeting room level of risk score based on the computed group-to-group score.” - See the aspects of Yan, Izod, and Chaurasia that have been cited above. Modifying, by the processors, the personnel and location risk characteristics for attendees of meetings, in Yan, the technical healthiness ratings, in Izod, and the likelihood of symptoms of occupants, in Chaurasia, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 5. Regarding claim 6, Yan/Izod/Chaurasia teaches the following limitations: “The method of Claim 1, further comprising: scheduling, by the hardware processor, for the break, an active manual physical cleaning of the meeting room, an autonomous cleaning of the meeting room, or a cleaning by a period of non-use of the meeting room.” - See the aspects of Yan and Izod that have been cited above. Scheduling, by the processors, in Yan, the vacancy gap, in Izod, and/or the scheduled cleaning, in Yan, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 6. Regarding claim 7, Yan/Izod/Chaurasia teaches the following limitations: “The method of claim 1, further comprising: tracking, by an identification system, a current presence of the participants and actions of the participants at the time of the first group meeting; and ...” - See the aspects of Yan that have been cited above. Yan also discloses, “Such systems might, for example, monitor employee (or customer/visitor) movements or behaviors, track density of people in various rooms (such as to monitor fire safety compliance), detect unsafe behaviors (such as violating vehicle top speeds), etc. This monitoring may be performed with a number of sensors such as cameras, motion trackers, security checkpoints, and the like” (para. [0001]), “detecting person 222 swiping a keycard or badge” (para. [0026]), and “operation 502 may include tracking visitors” (para. [0046]). Tracking, by the system, visitor movements and behaviors, locations, and the like, as they attend meetings, in Yan, reads on the recited limitation. “... modifying, by the hardware processor, said level of risk score based on a current absence or current action of the participant.” - See the aspects of Yan that have been cited above. Modifying, by the processors, the personnel and location risk characteristics, based on the presence of, absence of, and risky behaviors of, invited attendees, in Yan, reads on the recited limitation. Regarding claims 8-14, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-7, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1-7. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1-7 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 8-14. Limitations recited by claims 8-14 that do not appear to have a direct counterpart in claims 1-7, such as the recited computer hardware limitations of claim 8, are disclosed by Yan (paras. [0053] and [0054]). Claims 8-14 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Yan/Izod/Chaurasia. Regarding claims 15-20, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-14, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1-14. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1-14 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 15-20. Claims 15-20 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Yan/Izod/Chaurasia . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes the following: U.S. Pat. No. 11,367,534 B2 to McNamara et al. discloses, “A building system of a building, the building system including one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to receive occupancy data of occupants from an occupant tracking system, the occupancy data indicating locations of the occupants within a building space of the building. The instructions cause the one or more processors to determine, based on the occupancy data, whether one or more occupants of the occupants have violated a social distancing policy that reduces a spread of an infectious disease within the building based on the locations of at least two of the occupants, the social distancing policy based on one or more characteristics of the building space and perform one or more operations to improve compliance with the social distancing policy within the building.” (Abstract.) U.S. Pat. No. 11,450,115 B1 to Singh discloses, “A computer system is provided. The computer system includes a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to provide office safety controls. The at least one processor is further configured to perform computer vision analysis on an image of a shared resource to determine safety related conditions associated with the shared resource, the safety related conditions including a count of people using the shared resource and timing of the use of the shared resource, and update analytics associated with the shared resource based on the determined safety related conditions. The at least one processor is further configured to maintain a notification subscription associated with a user, the notification subscription including user specified safety parameters related to the shared resource, and generate a notification regarding the shared resource, the generation based on a comparison of the updated analytics and the user specified safety parameters.” (Abstract.) U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2021/0256439 A1 to Beloshapkova discloses, “Exemplary embodiments of the present invention utilize passive near-field communication (NFC) devices placed in various office spaces (e.g., offices, workstations, meeting rooms, etc.) to provide access to various scheduling and monitoring services.” (Abstract.) U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0028535 A1 to Ryan et al. discloses, “A method for mitigating disease transmission in a facility includes: accessing a set of extant disease metrics associated with a reporting period; accessing a set of images of the facility captured during the reporting period by a set of sensor blocks deployed in the facility; aggregating the set of images into a timeseries of facility maps depicting the facility during the reporting period; identifying a set of objects in the timeseries of facility maps, the set of objects comprising a set of humans; generating a transmission feature vector based on the set of objects in the timeseries of facility maps and the set of extant disease metrics associated with the reporting period; calculating a predicted timeseries of health metrics for the facility based on the transmission feature vector and a facility health model; and prompting a mitigation response at the facility based on the predicted timeseries of health metrics.” (Abstract.) U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0036258 A1 to Leach et al. discloses, “A method for mitigating risk of transmission of a contagious disease in a building. The method includes determining, by a processing circuit including one or more processors, a safety rule to be applied to a workspace including a plurality of workspace stations, the safety rule relating to limiting the transmission of the contagious disease. The method includes receiving a request for one or more reservable workspace stations, the request including one or more request parameters. The method includes identifying the one or more reservable workspace stations from among the plurality of workspace stations by determining whether to permit the one or more reservable workspace stations to be reserved based on the safety rule. The method includes generating data identifying the one or more reservable workspace stations.” (Abstract.) U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0036713 A1 to Hennessy et al. discloses, “A method includes receiving, by one or more processing circuits, risk data indicative of at least one of behavior of the users relating to the shared space or a user risk relating to a risk of one or more of the users contracting or spreading a disease, determining, by the one or more processing circuits, an accessibility limit for the shared space based on the risk data, the accessibility limit comprising at least one of an occupancy limit for the shared space or a timeframe during which the shared space is prohibited from occupancy, and generating, by the one or more processing circuits, an indicator of the accessibility limit for the shared space, the indicator providing an indication to the users of at least one of the occupancy limit or the timeframe during which the shared space is prohibited from occupancy.” (Abstract.) U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0178574 A1 to Dong et al. discloses, “A system and method for minimizing indoor infection risk and improving indoor air quality (IAQ) while maximizing energy savings. The system integrates occupancy detection and forecasting, outdoor weather conditions and forecasting, indoor infection risks and air quality modeling, any tunable air filtration, the clean air delivery rate, and any portable air cleaners. The system outputs the total amount of outdoor air intake, the air temperature of the supply air into the space, the supply air flow rate into the space, the operation mode of tunable air filtration/purification/disinfection, the operation mode of the in-room air cleaner, and space/room temperature set-points, and thus can serve as the central controller for an HVAC system.” (Abstract.) U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0177422 A1 to Douglas et al. discloses, “A building system for a school building, the building system including one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to receive attendance data indicating whether occupants of the school building are present or absent from the school building, determine, based on the attendance data, an infection risk level of at least one of the school building, a space of the school building, or one or more of the occupants to being infected with an infectious disease present in a population, and perform one or more operations for causing the infection risk level to be reduced in the school building.” (Abstract.) JP Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011-519457 A discloses, “An effective medical institution cleaning and disinfection system provides a comprehensive and systematic approach to cleaning and disinfection practices in a hospital or other medical institution. An effective hospital cleaning system identifies contaminated hospital vehicles; that is, sources from which nosocomial infections (HAI) can be prevalent. An effective system defines multiple modules within a medical institution, each having a specific cleaning and / or disinfection need and associated cleaning process map designed to meet the challenges faced by that module . The various stages of the cleaning process map include verification points, which are designed to ensure that proper cleaning and / or disinfection of the module is verified.” (English-language translation, abstract.) Li, Shuai, et al. "Integrated environment-occupant-pathogen information modeling to assess and communicate room-level outbreak risks of infectious diseases." Building and Environment 187 (2021): 107394. Ahmadzadeh, Mahdi, and Mehrzad Shams. "A numerical approach for preventing the dispersion of infectious disease in a meeting room." Scientific Reports 12.1 (2022): 16959. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Y. HO , whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern. 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, Jerry O'Connor , can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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. /THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 2 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 3 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 4 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 5 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 6 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 7 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 8 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 9 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 10 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 11 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 12 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 13 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 14 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 15 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 16 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 17 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 18 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 19 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 20 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 21 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 22 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 23 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 24 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 25 Art Unit: 3624 Application/Control Number: 18/129,301 Page 26 Art Unit: 3624
Prosecution Insights