DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed 6 September 2023, claiming benefit back to 20 April 2021.
Claims 1 – 11 are pending and have been examined.
This action is Non-Final.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) have been considered by the examiner.
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 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 10 recites the limitations of: A room management method comprising:
calculating, as the number of allowable users of a room, the number of persons with which a distance equal to or greater than a limit distance can be secured in the room, based on limit distance data indicating the limit distance defined as a distance to be kept between persons and room data indicating information on the room to be used by one or more persons.
These limitations (bolded and italicized), as drafted, is / are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, performing a calculation to determine the number of allowable users of a room, which encompasses mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.
Additionally, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the calculating encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to independent claim 10, the claim includes no additional elements other than the abstract idea per se.
In respect to independent claim 1, the claim recites the additional element of processing circuitry; however, this is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
In respect to independent claim 11, the claim recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer readable medium; however, this is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). The claim is directed to the abstract idea. (Step 2A: YES).
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. )
Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. In respect to dependent claims 2 – 9:
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 9 merely further describe the data used and further describes the judicial exception;
Claims 7 and 8 merely recite field of use limitations (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry1 [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] .
Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., paragraphs [0013]-[0022] and [0138]-[0143], provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation2.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being disclosed by Dhamiha et al. (U.S. 2021/0398691, hereinafter Dhamiha).
In respect to claim l, Dhamiha discloses a room management system comprising
processing circuitry to calculate, as the number of allowable users of a room, the number of persons with which a distance equal to or greater than a limit distance can be secured in the room, based on limit distance data indicating the limit distance defined as a distance to be kept between persons and room data indicating information on the room to be used by one or more persons ([0093] It is further contemplated that the location of people within a building or facility can allow others to base their movements on the location of others. For example, in an office environment, an occupant may wish to visit a common area such as, but not limited to, a coffee station, a breakroom, a copy room, a conference room, etc. However, prior to leaving their workstation, the occupant has no way of knowing if the common area is occupied and/or if the occupancy exceeds a predetermined maximum number. The predetermined maximum number may be the number of people that can occupy a space while maintaining a minimum threshold distance between each of the people; [0103] In addition to limiting the number of people present in a common space, it may be desirable to space the people such that a predetermined distance threshold is maintained between each person. For example, in a conference room, it may be desirable to space chairs a predetermined distances apart. However, to optimize efficient use of time and space, it is desirable to maximize the occupancy of a space while ensuring social distancing guidelines are followed. It is contemplated that security cameras or other installed still image or video cameras may be utilized to help determine and accommodate a maximum number of people in a space while still complying with social distancing protocols (e.g., maintain a minimum predetermined distance between each person)).
In respect to claim 5, Dhamiha discloses the room management system according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry refers to request data indicating information on one or more requesters who wish to use the room so as to calculate the number of requesters, compares the number of requesters with the number of allowable users, and determines whether or not to permit each requester to use the room based on a result of comparison (FIG. 8 and [0098]-[0101], noting Receive request from user to use a space, Count a number of people in the space, Is space available, and Allocate a space for the user).
Claims 10 and 11 recite a method and computer readable medium, respectively, performing the same limitations as found in claim 1, and are rejected using the same rationale.
Subject Matter Not Rejected Over Prior art
Claims 2 – 4, and 6 – 9 do not currently stand rejected over any prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Jampani; Krishnam Raju et al. US 20170026806 A1 Indoor Positioning Systems And Meeting Room Occupancy
Varlet; Eric et al. US 20210365601 A1 System And Method For Clinical Laboratory Layout Design
Ryan; Dan et al. US 20220028535 A1 Method For Mitigating Disease Transmission In A Facility
Fujimoto; Masakazu et al. US 20120038481 A1 Information Processing Apparatus And Computer Readable Medium
; Kengo Et Al. US 20190239814 A1 Information Processing System
Kakiuchi; Hiroyuki US 20100094467 A1 Energy Saving System
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. Id, pages 10-11. “Likewise, the server fails to add an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer that “administer[ s]” digital images using a known “arbitrary data bank system.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 45–46. But “[f]or the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359). “These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 (“storing information” into memory, and using a computer to “translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,” insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 (a “database” and “a communication medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”)”. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C., (No. 15-1372, (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)), at *12-13.
See additionally MPEP 2106.05(d).
2 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Prosecution Insights