DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 are rejected on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis
Each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2 Analysis
Claim 1 includes the following recitation of an abstract idea:
A method for generating a seat allocation plan, (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
…analyzing, …, the floorplan in order to determine a number of seats and to identify locations of the seats and locations of non-seating areas; (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
determining, …based on a result of the analyzing and the first input, a seat allocation plan. (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising: (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for performing the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
receiving, by the at least one processor, a floorplan that corresponds to a floor of a building; (This is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, sending or receiving data is well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited at MPEP 2106.05(d), example i. Receiving or transmitting data.)
… by the at least one processor (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for performing the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
receiving, by the at least one processor, a first input that includes information that relates to a plurality of persons for which seat allocations are to be made; and (This is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, sending or receiving data is well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited at MPEP 2106.05(d), example i. Receiving or transmitting data.)
… by the at least one processor (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for performing the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Claim 1 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 2 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends, and further recites
wherein the determining of the seat allocation plan comprises applying an artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm that implements a Mixed Integer Programming and Constraint Reasoning technique with respect to the result of the analyzing and the first input. (This is a recitation of a mathematical concept.)
Claim 2 does not recite further additional elements which might integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 3 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends, and further recites
determining distances between the locations of the seats and the locations of the non-seating areas.
Claim 3 does not recite further additional elements which might integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 4 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends, and further recites
the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on optimizing a proximity of the locations of the seats allocated to persons within the at least one respective group. (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 4 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
wherein the first input further includes information that relates to at least one respective group with which a corresponding one of the plurality of persons is associated, and (This is a recitation of using data of a particular type or source to perform the abstract idea. This is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
Claim 4 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 5 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends, and further recites
the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on allocating seats to the plurality of groups in an order of the at least one hierarchical level with which the corresponding one of the plurality of groups is associated. (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 5 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
wherein the at least one respective group includes a plurality of groups; the first input further includes information that relates to at least one hierarchical level with which a corresponding one of the plurality of groups is associated; and (This is a recitation of using data of a particular type or source to perform the abstract idea. This is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
Claim 5 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 6 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends, and further recites
the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on allocating seats to the plurality of persons in an order of the at least one hierarchical level with which the corresponding one of the plurality of persons is associated. (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 6 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
wherein the first input includes information that relates to at least one hierarchical level with which a corresponding one of the plurality of persons is associated, and (This is a recitation of using data of a particular type or source to perform the abstract idea. This is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
Claim 6 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 7 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
displaying, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a result of the determining of the seat allocation plan. (The displaying is recited at a high level of generality and uses the computer as a tool to implement an existing process. This is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Claim 7 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 8 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends, and further recites
wherein the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on the second input. (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 8 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
receiving, by the at least one processor, a second input that includes information that relates to constraints that are mandatory and information that relates to preferences that are not mandatory, and (This is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Moreover, sending or receiving data is well-understood, routine, conventional as evidenced by the court cases cited at MPEP 2106.05(d), example i. Receiving or transmitting data.)
Claim 8 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 9 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends, and further recites
wherein the analyzing further comprises using the third input and …template matching to detect the locations of the seating areas in the floorplan by matching the template to corresponding figures in the floorplan. (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 9 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
receiving, by at least one processor, a third input that includes information defining a template corresponding to seating areas in the floorplan, and (This is a recitation of using data of a particular type or source to perform the abstract idea. This is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(h).)
… computer vision (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for performing the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Claim 9 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 10 recites at least the abstract idea identified above in the claim upon which it depends, and further recites
determining, by the at least one processor based on the fourth input, an updated seat allocation plan; and (This is practical to perform in the human mind under its broadest reasonable interpretation aside from the recitation of generic computer components. This is a recitation of a mental process.)
Claim 10 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements from the claim upon which it depends, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
displaying via a GUI, a prompt that facilitates receiving a fourth input that includes at least one adjustment to the information included in the first input; (The displaying is recited at a high level of generality and uses the computer as a tool to implement an existing process. This is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
…displaying, via the GUI, a result of the determining of the updated seat allocation plan. (The displaying is recited at a high level of generality and uses the computer as a tool to implement an existing process. This is a mere instruction to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Claim 10 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Claim 11 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 1 and is rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 11 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements addressed with respect to claim 1, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
A computing apparatus for generating a seat allocation plan, the computing apparatus comprising: a processor; a memory; a display; and a communication interface coupled to each of the processor, the memory, and the display, wherein the processor is configured to: (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for performing the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Claim 11 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Regarding claims 12-18, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated herein. Claims 12-18 recite substantially similar subject matter to claims 2-8, respectively, and are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 19 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 1 and is rejected with the same rationale.
Claim 19 recites the following additional elements which, considered individually and as an ordered combination with the additional elements addressed with respect to claim 1, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions for generating a seat allocation plan, the storage medium comprising executable code which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to: (This is a high level recitation of generic computer components for performing the abstract idea. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Claim 19 does not reflect an improvement to computer technology or any other technology.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated herein. Claim 20 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 2 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva (US 2023/0214544 A1) in view of Vatidis (US 11,928,395 B1).
Examiner Remark: Silva is prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1) by virtue of its publication date. Note MPEP 2153.01(a). In particular, “If, however, the application names fewer joint inventors than a publication (e.g., the application names as joint inventors A and B, and the publication names as authors A, B and C), it would not be readily apparent from the publication that it is an inventor-originated disclosure and the publication would be treated as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) unless there is evidence of record that an exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) applies.”
Regarding claim 1, Silva teaches
A method for generating a seat allocation plan, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising: (Silva, Abstract and Figures 3-4. [0041] indicates that the techniques may be implemented by a processor.)
receiving, by the at least one processor, a floorplan that corresponds to a floor of a building; (Silva, Figure 4, step S404 and description at [0080])
…receiving, by the at least one processor, a first input that includes information that relates to a plurality of persons for which seat allocations are to be made; and (Silva, Figure 4, step S402 and description at [0079].)
determining, by the at least one processor … and the first input, a seat allocation plan. (Silva, Figure 4, S408 and description at [0082-0084].)
Silva does not appear to explicitly teach
analyzing, by the at least one processor, the floorplan in order to determine a number of seats and to identify locations of the seats and locations of non-seating areas; … determining, … based on a result of the analyzing… a seat allocation plan.
However, Vatidis—directed to analogous art—teaches
analyzing, by the at least one processor, the floorplan in order to determine a number of seats and to identify locations of the seats and locations of non-seating areas; (Vatidis, Abstract, Figure 3, steps 315 through 335 show analyzing a floor plan to determine characteristics of the spaces. Column 3, lines 4-14; column 5, lines 13-29; column 19, lines 1-11 describe determining a number of seats or seating capacity. Column 14, lines 36 through 65 indicate that the floorplan is divided into spaces with each space corresponding to a reference point (i.e., a location). Column 15, lines 46 through column 16 line 3 describes an example in which the spaces may be chairs (i.e., seats) or tables (i.e., non-seats). Column 6, lines 30-33 indicate that the spaces may also include a reception area, a bathroom, a kitchen, a circulation, or a navigable space, each of which would be non-seating areas.)
… determining, … based on a result of the analyzing… a seat allocation plan. (Vatidis, Column 17 lines 23 through 43 describe performing personnel allocation based on the identification of spaces. In the combination with Silva, the data extracted from the floorplan as taught by Vatidis would be used as part of the allocation taught by Silva.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Silva by Vatidis because “The application may provide analysis based on determined room types and dimensions to provide space utilization improvements, and health and safety planning. The application may provide for the creation of maps based on the floor plans” (Vatidis, column 21, line 66 through column 22, line 3).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Furthermore, Silva teaches
wherein the determining of the seat allocation plan comprises applying an artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm that implements a Mixed Integer Programming and Constraint Reasoning technique with respect to the result of the analyzing and the first input. (Silva, [0101] describes using mixed integer linear programming while satisfying all of the constraints, which would include the constraints coming from the personnel information at S402.)
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Silva does not appear to explicitly teach
wherein the analyzing further comprises determining distances between the locations of the seats and the locations of the non-seating areas.
However, Vatidis—directed to analogous art—teaches
wherein the analyzing further comprises determining distances between the locations of the seats and the locations of the non-seating areas. (Vatidis, Column 16, line 64 through column 17 line 13 describes determining the distances between spaces in the floorplan. Column 15, lines 46 through column 16 line 3 describes an example in which the spaces may be chairs (i.e., seats) or tables (i.e., non-seats). Column 6, lines 30-33 indicate that the spaces may also include a reception area, a bathroom, a kitchen, a circulation, or a navigable space, each of which would be non-seating areas.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined these references in this way for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Furthermore, Silva teaches
wherein the first input further includes information that relates to at least one respective group with which a corresponding one of the plurality of persons is associated, and (Silva, step S402, [0079], the personnel information may include a team or other organization to which the person is assigned.)
the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on optimizing a proximity of the locations of the seats allocated to persons within the at least one respective group. (Silva, S406-S408, [0081, 0083] indicates that team membership is considered and that, for example, teams may be assigned to the same floor. [0091] indicates that the algorithm may minimize the overall distance between seats assigned to each team.)
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Furthermore, Silva teaches
further comprising displaying, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a result of the determining of the seat allocation plan. (Silva, Figure 4, S410, described at [0084-0085].)
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Furthermore, Silva teaches
receiving, by the at least one processor, a second input that includes information that relates to constraints that are mandatory and information that relates to preferences that are not mandatory, and wherein the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on the second input. (Silva, Figure 4, steps S406-S408, described at [0081-0083].)
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Silva does not appear to explicitly teach
receiving, by at least one processor, a third input that includes information defining a template corresponding to seating areas in the floorplan, and
wherein the analyzing further comprises using the third input and computer vision template matching to detect the locations of the seating areas in the floorplan by matching the template to corresponding figures in the floorplan.
However, Vatidis—directed to analogous art—teaches
receiving, by at least one processor, a third input that includes information defining a template corresponding to seating areas in the floorplan, and wherein the analyzing further comprises using the third input and computer vision template matching to detect the locations of the seating areas in the floorplan by matching the template to corresponding figures in the floorplan. (Column 10, lines 3-57 describe storing mappings (i.e., templates) that identify from previous iterations of a floorplan file which determines elements in the layers. The elements in the layers may correspond to seats (see column 3, lines 4-9 and column 5, lines 13-19). The old mappings are compared to the new file (for example by processing the layers to generate a checksum value) to determine layers of the new file. The old mappings need to be received by the processor at least from memory. Note that any computer implemented image analysis technique would fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer vision”.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined these references in this way for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Furthermore, Silva teaches
displaying via a GUI, a prompt that facilitates receiving a fourth input that includes at least one adjustment to the information included in the first input; determining, by the at least one processor based on the fourth input, an updated seat allocation plan; and displaying, via the GUI, a result of the determining of the updated seat allocation plan. (Silva, Figure 4, steps S410-S412, described at [0084-0087]. See also [0020, 0029].)
Regarding claim 11, Silva teaches
A computing apparatus for generating a seat allocation plan, the computing apparatus comprising: a processor; a memory; a display; and a communication interface coupled to each of the processor, the memory, and the display, wherein the processor is configured to: (Silva, Figures 1-3 and corresponding description. See also [0021].)
The remainder of claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claims 12-14 and 17-18, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Claims 12-14 and 17-18 recite substantially similar subject matter to claims 2-4 and 7-8, respectively, and are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 19, Silva teaches
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions for generating a seat allocation plan, the storage medium comprising executable code which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to: (Silva, Figures 1-3, [0041, 0045])
The remainder of claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated herein. Claim 20 recites substantially similar subject matter to claim 2 and is rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silva (US 2023/0214544 A1) in view of Vatidis (US 11,928,395B1), further in view of Thomson (US 4,642,780).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated herein. Furthermore, Silva teaches the following with brackets used to indicate where the teaching of Silva may differ from the claim language:
wherein the at least one respective group includes a plurality of groups; the first input further includes information that relates to at least one hierarchical level with which a corresponding one of the plurality of groups is associated; and (Silva, [0092] indicates that the personnel data may include team hierarchy or management hierarchy data. The different hierarchies between members in the same team correspond to different groups.)
the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on allocating seats to the plurality of groups [based on] the at least one hierarchical level with which the corresponding one of the plurality of groups is associated. ([0099] indicates that the job title or level in the hierarchy (e.g., managing director) influences the assignment (e.g., all managing directors require an office). However, the order of assignment does not necessarily appear to be specified by job title or level in the hierarchy.)
Silva does not appear to explicitly teach the following, with italics emphasizing the portion of the limitation that is not taught by Silva:
the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on allocating seats to the plurality of groups in an order of the at least one hierarchical level with which the corresponding one of the plurality of groups is associated.
However, Thomson—directed to analogous art—teaches
the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on allocating seats to the plurality of groups in an order of the at least one hierarchical level with which the corresponding one of the plurality of groups is associated. (Thomson, Column 5, line 37 through column 6, line 9 indicates that office space allocation priority may be determined by a location in the office hierarchy. In the combination with Silva, the allocations would be performed in the priority order specified by the priorities taught by Thomson.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Silva by Thomson to use priority based on hierarchy level because this allows for a user to control the priority as described by Thomson at column 5, line 37 through column 6, line 9.)
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Furthermore, Silva teaches the following with brackets used to indicate where the teaching of Silva may differ from the claim language:
wherein the first input includes information that relates to at least one hierarchical level with which a corresponding one of the plurality of persons is associated, and (Silva, [0092] indicates that the personnel data may include team hierarchy or management hierarchy data. The different hierarchies between members in the same team correspond to different groups.)
the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on allocating seats to the plurality of persons in an order of the at least one hierarchical level with which the corresponding one of the plurality of persons is associated. ([0099] indicates that the job title or level in the hierarchy (e.g., managing director) influences the assignment (e.g., all managing directors require an office). However, the order of assignment does not necessarily appear to be specified by job title or level in the hierarchy.)
Silva does not appear to explicitly teach the following, with italics emphasizing the portion of the limitation that is not taught by Silva:
the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on allocating seats to the plurality of persons in an order of the at least one hierarchical level with which the corresponding one of the plurality of persons is associated.
However, Thomson—directed to analogous art—teaches
the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on allocating seats to the plurality of persons in an order of the at least one hierarchical level with which the corresponding one of the plurality of persons is associated. (Thomson, Column 5, line 37 through column 6, line 9 indicates that office space allocation priority may be determined by a location in the office hierarchy. In the combination with Silva, the allocations would be performed in the priority order specified by the priorities taught by Thomson.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined these references in this way for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 5.
Regarding claims 15-16, the rejection of claims 14 and 11, respectively, are incorporated herein. Claims 15-16 recite substantially similar subject matter to claims 5-6, respectively, and are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 or 13 (see below) of U.S. Patent No. 12645847 in view of Vatidis (US 11,928,395 B1).
Claims 2, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 or 13 (see below) of U.S. Patent No. 12645847 in view of Vatidis (US 11,928,395 B1), further in view of Silva (US 2023/0214544 A1).
Regarding instant claim 1, patented claim 4 discloses each limitation of instant claim 1 except for
analyzing, by the at least one processor, the floorplan in order to determine a number of seats and to identify locations of the seats and locations of non-seating areas; … determining, … based on a result of the analyzing… a seat allocation plan.
However, Vatidis—directed to analogous art—teaches
analyzing, by the at least one processor, the floorplan in order to determine a number of seats and to identify locations of the seats and locations of non-seating areas; (Vatidis, Abstract, Figure 3, steps 315 through 335 show analyzing a floor plan to determine characteristics of the spaces. Column 3, lines 4-14; column 5, lines 13-29; column 19, lines 1-11 describe determining a number of seats or seating capacity. Column 14, lines 36 through 65 indicate that the floorplan is divided into spaces with each space corresponding to a reference point (i.e., a location). Column 15, lines 46 through column 16 line 3 describes an example in which the spaces may be chairs (i.e., seats) or tables (i.e., non-seats). Column 6, lines 30-33 indicate that the spaces may also include a reception area, a bathroom, a kitchen, a circulation, or a navigable space, each of which would be non-seating areas.)
… determining, … based on a result of the analyzing… a seat allocation plan. (Vatidis, Column 17 lines 23 through 43 describe performing personnel allocation based on the identification of spaces. In the combination with Silva, the data extracted from the floorplan as taught by Vatidis would be used as part of the allocation taught by Silva.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the patented claim by Vatidis because “The application may provide analysis based on determined room types and dimensions to provide space utilization improvements, and health and safety planning. The application may provide for the creation of maps based on the floor plans” (Vatidis, column 21, line 66 through column 22, line 3).
Regarding instant claim 2, the rejection of instant claim 1 is incorporated herein. The patented claim in view of Vatidis does not appear to explicitly teach
wherein the determining of the seat allocation plan comprises applying an artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm that implements a Mixed Integer Programming and Constraint Reasoning technique with respect to the result of the analyzing and the first input.
However, Silva—directed to analogous art—teaches
wherein the determining of the seat allocation plan comprises applying an artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithm that implements a Mixed Integer Programming and Constraint Reasoning technique with respect to the result of the analyzing and the first input. (Silva, [0101] describes using mixed integer linear programming while satisfying all of the constraints, which would include the constraints coming from the personnel information at S402.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the patented claim by Silva because they rely on the same disclosure and because the techniques of Silva allow for using artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques to optimize real estate usage and space planning as described by Silva at [0011].
Regarding instant claim 3, the rejection of instant claim 1 is incorporated herein. The patented claim does not appear to explicitly teach
wherein the analyzing further comprises determining distances between the locations of the seats and the locations of the non-seating areas.
However, Vatidis—directed to analogous art—teaches
wherein the analyzing further comprises determining distances between the locations of the seats and the locations of the non-seating areas. (Vatidis, Column 16, line 64 through column 17 line 13 describes determining the distances between spaces in the floorplan. Column 15, lines 46 through column 16 line 3 describes an example in which the spaces may be chairs (i.e., seats) or tables (i.e., non-seats). Column 6, lines 30-33 indicate that the spaces may also include a reception area, a bathroom, a kitchen, a circulation, or a navigable space, each of which would be non-seating areas.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined these references in this way for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding instant claim 4, the rejection of instant claim 1 is incorporated herein. Patented claim 4 does not appear to explicitly teach
wherein the first input further includes information that relates to at least one respective group with which a corresponding one of the plurality of persons is associated, and
the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on optimizing a proximity of the locations of the seats allocated to persons within the at least one respective group.
Furthermore, Silva teaches
wherein the first input further includes information that relates to at least one respective group with which a corresponding one of the plurality of persons is associated, and (Silva, step S402, [0079], the personnel information may include a team or other organization to which the person is assigned.)
the determining of the seat allocation plan is further based on optimizing a proximity of the locations of the seats allocated to persons within the at least one respective group. (Silva, S406-S408, [0081, 0083] indicates that team membership is considered and that, for example, teams may be assigned to the same floor. [0091] indicates that the algorithm may minimize the overall distance between seats assigned to each team.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined these references in this way for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding instant claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The patented claim does not appear to explicitly teach
further comprising displaying, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a result of the determining of the seat allocation plan.
However, Silva—directed to analogous art—teaches
further comprising displaying, via a graphical user interface (GUI), a result of the determining of the seat allocation plan. (Silva, Figure 4, S410, described at [0084-0085].)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined these references in this way for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding instant claim 8, the rejection of instant claim 1 is incorporated herein. Patented claim 4 further teaches the limitations of instant claim 8.
Regarding instant claim 9, the rejection of instant claim 1 is incorporated herein. Patented claim 4 does not appear to explicitly teach
receiving, by at least one processor, a third input that includes information defining a template corresponding to seating areas in the floorplan, and
wherein the analyzing further comprises using the third input and computer vision template matching to detect the locations of the seating areas in the floorplan by matching the template to corresponding figures in the floorplan.
However, Vatidis—directed to analogous art—teaches
receiving, by at least one processor, a third input that includes information defining a template corresponding to seating areas in the floorplan, and wherein the analyzing further comprises using the third input and computer vision template matching to detect the locations of the seating areas in the floorplan by matching the template to corresponding figures in the floorplan. (Column 10, lines 3-57 describe storing mappings (i.e., templates) that identify from previous iterations of a floorplan file which determines elements in the layers. The elements in the layers may correspond to seats (see column 3, lines 4-9 and column 5, lines 13-19). The old mappings are compared to the new file (for example by processing the layers to generate a checksum value) to determine layers of the new file. The old mappings need to be received by the processor at least from memory. Note that any computer implemented image analysis technique would fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer vision”.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined these references in this way for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding instant claim 10, the rejection of instant claim 1 is incorporated herein. Patented claim 4 does not appear to explicitly teach
displaying via a GUI, a prompt that facilitates receiving a fourth input that includes at least one adjustment to the information included in the first input; determining, by the at least one processor based on the fourth input, an updated seat allocation plan; and displaying, via the GUI, a result of the determining of the updated seat allocation plan.
However, Silva—directed to analogous art—teaches
displaying via a GUI, a prompt that facilitates receiving a fourth input that includes at least one adjustment to the information included in the first input; determining, by the at least one processor based on the fourth input, an updated seat allocation plan; and displaying, via the GUI, a result of the determining of the updated seat allocation plan. (Silva, Figure 4, steps S410-S412, described at [0084-0087]. See also [0020, 0029].)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined these references in this way for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 2.
Regarding instant claims 11-14 and 17-18, these claims recite substantially similar subject matter to instant claims 1-4 and 7-8, respectively, and patented claim 13 recites substantially similar subject matter to patented claim 4. Moreover, instant claims 11-14 and 17-18 share the same statutory category as patented claim 13. Instant claims 11-14 and 17-18 are rejected over patented claim 13 in view of Vatidis and possibly in view of Silva for the same reasons given above with respect to the corresponding claims, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding instant claims 19-20, these claims recite substantially similar subject matter to instant claims 1-2, respectively, and are rejected with the same rationale, mutatis mutandis. Note that Vatidis also teaches an embodiment using a non-transitory computer readable medium at column 6, lines 44-49. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined these references in this way for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haag (US 2020/0151283 A1) – Abstract describes generating a seating plan according to user-supplied criteria.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Markus A Vasquez whose telephone number is (303)297-4432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM to 4PM PT.
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, Li Zhen can be reached on (571) 272-3768. 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.
/MARKUS A. VASQUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2121
Prosecution Insights