DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This Final Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/279,086. In response to Examiner’s action mail dated June 06, 2025, Applicant submitted amendments and arguments. Applicant submitted cancelled claims 1- 17. Applicant did not amend claims 18-22. Applicant added new claims 23-38. The claims 18-38 are examined in light of 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C 103, see below.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not submit information disclosure statement (IDS) for consideration by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Claims 18-38 are pending. Applicant submitted cancelled claims 1- 17. Applicant did not amend claims 18-22. Applicant added new claims 23-38. The claims 18-38 are examined in light of 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C 103, see below.
Applicant’s amendments are not sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth in the previous action. The claims 23-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, see below.
Regarding prior art, the claims 18-22 and 23-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. See below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of the revised rejections. Applicant’s argument will be considered herein below.
Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101
On pages 11-13 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments, Applicant traverses, Examiner’s rejection for claims 18-22. Applicant submitted arguments for new claims 23-38. The arguments for claims 23-38 are improper because the claims 23-38 are new and have not been examined. Examiner will consider the arguments claims 23-38 as information.
Regarding claims 18-22, Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of claims 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and submits that claims 18-22 are patent eligible.
Independent Claim 18. Applicant respectfully submits that independent claims 18 is not directed merely to organizing human activity or mental processes. The Applicant submits a list of methods (i)-(v), submitting such operations require specifically programmed computing. Applicant submits the methods (i)-(v) cannot be performed in the human mind because the “successive database management with removal/append functions and automated compatibility scoring across potentially thousands of messages is not a mental step but rather a computer operation.” Claim 18 recites a structured computer- implemented method that includes: (i) storing host and guest messages in separate databases, (ii) receiving and parsing an incoming message into discrete fields, (iii) generating multi-level compatibility scores based on comparisons of discrete data fields, (iv) automatically generating a match message when compatibility thresholds are met, and (v) dynamically updating the databases to remove or append messages.
Applicant submits the methods (i)-(v) are integrated into a practical application. Applicant submits the invention includes technical improvements listing items (i)-(iii). The technical improvements include: (i) structured parsing of digital messages into discrete fields, enabling automated scoring and reducing processing inefficiency; (ii) multi-level compatibility scoring, which improves computing efficiency by limiting further comparisons unless earlier criteria are satisfied; and (iii) dynamic database management, ensuring real-time updating of host/guest availability without human intervention.
Applicant submits the improvements are comparable to those recognized in McRo v. Bandai Namco and Enfish v. Microsoft. Applicant submits claim 18 amount to more than a generic computer implementation. Claim 18 specifies specific technical rules and a structured sequence of operations that transform user messages into concrete session generation events carries out by the computer. Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Examiner submits the Claims 18 recite the abstract idea of generating a message compatibility score, which is concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and thus, the claims fall within the mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite mental concepts, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
Although the Applicant argues the claim 18 teaches a list of methods (i)-(v), provided above, Examiner submits the claim 18 teaches (iv) automatically generating a match message when compatibility thresholds are met. Matching information from a message is a function that can be completed in the mind. The methods (i)-(iii) and (v), argued by the Applicant are not claimed, therefore, these arguments are not persuasive. Claim 18 recite the abstract idea of generating a message compatibility score, which is concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and thus, the claims fall within the mental processes.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments of technical improvements, McRo is rooted in animation and “morph weights” and lip synchronization for 3-D animation using a rules-based morph approach. The court noted that the claims focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a particular type to be rendered in a specific way. Here, Applicant’s claims are generating a message compatibility score using a computer, and thus, the claims are not similar to McRo. Applicant’s technical improvement arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments of technical improvements, referring to Enfish, are not persuasive. In Enfish, where the Court explained that software can “make non-abstract improvements to computer technology”, focused on the self-referential nature of the claimed database as a “specific type of data structure” to improve the operation of a computer, the court held the claims are patent eligible. In Enfish, the claims recited a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in software. Here, the Applicant’s claims are using a computer to pass messages and determine a compatibility score. Passing a message and determining a compatibility score is an abstract idea. The claims are using a computer to complete the abstract idea, which is “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05 (f). Applicant’s claims at Step 2A prong 2 is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding the Applicant arguments of technical improvement, referring to (i) -(iii), see above. The Applicant’s arguments describe the intended technical improvements; however, these argued functions are not claimed. E.g., multi-level compatibility scoring, which improves computing efficiency by limiting further comparisons unless earlier criteria are satisfied. Applicant is encouraged to clarify the computing efficiency function in the specification, and positively recite the functions of the invention that are conducting the computing efficiency.
Furthermore, regarding computing efficiency, the Applicant is pointed to Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) Guidance Example 40- Network Traffic Monitoring for consideration.
When considered as a whole at Step 2B, claim 18 is MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims The Examiner’s consideration given in Step 2A are the same and overlap with Step 2B.
Claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 19-22. Applicant submitted arguments for dependent claims 1—22:
Claim 19 . Applicant traverses claim 19 further requires that incoming messages are encrypted and that extracting comprises decrypting the incoming messages. Encryption and decryption are not mental processes. The claimed step ensures secure communication between user devices and the databases, which is a technical improvement in secure computing environments. Courts have recognized such data-security improvements as patent eligible (see Ancora Techs. v. HTC America, 908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018), holding claims eligible because they improved computer security). Thus, claim 19 meaningfully narrows claim 18 to require a specific, technical improvement in secure data handling.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s claim 19 arguments. As claimed, claim 18 recite broadly recites encryption and decryption. Examiner notes encryption and decryption is a mental process of converting data to a readable form. Encrypting and decrypting a puzzle involves figuring out the solution to a coded message or puzzle by using various strategies and techniques to decipher the hidden message. This can involve identifying patterns, using letter frequency analysis, and applying substitution ciphers, and thus, encryption and decryption can be completed using pen and paper. Applicant is encouraged to clarify the additional elements that are associated with the encryption and decryption. Accordingly, the recitation of encryption and decryption is not sufficient to overcome a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Ancora Techs. v. HTC America, 908 F.3d 1343, the Applicant’s claims are not similar. In Ancora, the court evaluated the claims under Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec. In Ancora, the claimed invention moved a software-verification structure to a BIOS location not previously used for this computer-security purpose and altered how the function was performed (in that the BIOS memory used for verification now interacts with distinct computer memory to perform a software-verification function), yielding a tangible technological benefit (by making the claimed system less susceptible to hacking). Here, the Applicant is merely claiming encryption and decryption of messages, without identifying the technical elements and technical improvements that is yielding a technological benefit. The Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim 20. Applicant traverses Claim 20 specifies that each discrete portion of the incoming message is encrypted and that extracting comprises decrypting each discrete portion. This refinement is not an abstract idea but a concrete enhancement of digital message management. By encrypting discrete portions individually, the system gains fine-grained control over data exposure, reducing security risks and computational inefficiency. A mental process cannot feasibly decrypt selectively encrypted discrete fields of a digital message. Claim 20 is therefore directed to a technical solution to a technological problem.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Claim 20 arguments. Similar to claim 18 , Examiner notes encryption and decryption is a mental process of converting data to a readable form. Encrypting and decrypting a puzzle involves figuring out the solution to a coded message or puzzle by using various strategies and techniques to decipher the hidden message. This can involve identifying patterns, using letter frequency analysis, and applying substitution ciphers, and thus, encryption and decryption can be completed using pen and paper. Applicant is encouraged to clarify the additional elements that are associated with the encryption and decryption. Accordingly, the recitation of encryption and decryption is not sufficient to overcome a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 21. Applicant traverse, Claim 21 further requires successively decrypting each discrete portion. This narrows the method to a specific processing strategy that reduces computational overhead: the system decrypts portions step-by-step, rather than decrypting all at once. This improves both efficiency and security, ensuring that unnecessary portions remain encrypted unless needed. Such ordered, conditional decryption reflects an improvement in the functioning of the computer system, not a mere mental step.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Claim 21 arguments. Similar to claim 18, Examiner notes encryption and decryption is a mental process of converting data to a readable form. Accordingly, the recitation of encryption and decryption is not sufficient to overcome a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 22. In Claim 22, Applicant specifies a detailed protocol for successive decryption tied to compatibility scoring: (i) decrypting a first portion; (ii) comparing it to a stored message; (iii) generating a non-zero compatibility score; and (iv) decrypting the next portion only if compatibility is established. Claim 22 describes a technical mechanism that directly reduces computational load and minimizes data exposure. Humans cannot feasibly perform this conditional, successive digital decryption at scale. Claim 22 provides a computer-implemented solution that improves both speed and security of automated session matching.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s Claim 22 arguments. Similar to claim 18, Examiner notes encryption and decryption is a mental process of converting data to a readable form. Accordingly, the recitation of encryption and decryption is not sufficient to overcome a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
At claim 22, regarding the intended use of reducing computational load and minimizing data exposure, the Applicant is pointed to Examiner’s arguments for claim 18. Applicant is pointed to Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) Guidance Example 40- Network Traffic Monitoring for consideration.
Applicant respectfully submits that independent claim 18 recites a specific computer-implemented method for automated multi-user session management that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Dependent claims 19-22 each add concrete, technical improvements in secure and efficient digital message processing. Claims 18-22 are therefore directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. Withdrawal of the Section 101 rejection of claims 18-22 is therefore respectfully requested.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments. See Examiner’s responses to Applicant’s arguments above. Claims 18-22 are not patent eligible.
Rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103
On pages 14-22 of the Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 103 arguments, Applicant traverses, Examiner’s rejection for claims 18-22. Applicant submitted arguments for new claims 23-38. The arguments for claims 23-38 are improper because the claims 23-38 are new and have not been examined. Examiner will consider the Applicant’s arguments for the claims 23-38 as information.
Section 103 Rejection of Independent Claim 18 Based on Just and Wang
Applicant respectfully traverses the prior art rejection of claims 18-22. Applicant traverses the primary reference Just discloses only a system for granting user access to enterprise-managed shared resources such as conference rooms. Applicant asserts the invention address the problem of organizing co-remote working session between individuals, where a space providing user offers access to a space and a space requesting user joins that space for collaborative interaction. Just, however, is confines to the problem of scheduling an … which are centrally managed and not provided by one user to another. The problems are entirely different and cannot reasonably be equated. Moreover, claim 18 introduces a specific mechanism in which incoming messages are parsed into discrete portions and evaluated against host offer data to generate compatibility scores. Just does not disclose or suggest such a mechanism. Instead, Just relies on statis user preferences and historical usage data for the purposes of managing shared office resources. Claim 18 also introduces peer-to-peer relationships is central to the invention and is fundamentally different from Just. The technical purpose of claim 18 likewise diverge sharply from those of Just. No collaboration between users is established in Just through compatibility analysis of messages.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s prior art arguments. The claims 18-22 do not necessitate a co-remote working session between individuals. The claims 18-22 do not necessitate a peer-to-peer relationship. Therefore, Examiner finds these arguments not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments regarding a compatibility score, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Just teaches a user making use of a conference room or other shared resource site (host). Wang teaches conversation reservation optimization method. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, a user may be offered options for booking a room or space from which to participate in the meeting, as taught by Just, with the reservation system can recommend the preferred meeting precise comparison for the user to select the conference with the highest score of meeting, as taught by Wang, so the booking meeting condition can the meet the requirement of the conference to avoid the problem of resource waste., Wang [p.8].
The secondary reference to Wang does not cure the foregoing deficiencies of Just. Accordingly, one ordinary skilled in the art would not have been led to modify the references to attain the subject matter of independent claim 18.
Examiner notes “[a] general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.” 37 CFR 1.111(b). Applicant’s assertions regarding claims 18 and the claims dependent on claim 18 are not persuasive because they are general allegations, rather than arguments specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patently distinguishes them from Just.
In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of independent claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being patentable over Just in view of Wang has been overcome and should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s prior art arguments of Just in view of Wang for the reasons provided above. See above. Applicant cancelled claims 1-17. Applicant did not amend the claims 18-22, therefore Examiner to has not amended the claims 18-22 rejection. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Section 103 Rejection of Dependent Claims 19-22 Based on Just, Wang and Nguyen
Applicant submits, Claim 18 requires the generation of collaborative co-remote sessions between individual users only when compatibility exists, whereas Just is limited to scheduling user access to existing facilities. No collaboration between users is established in Just through compatibility analysis of messages.
The secondary reference to Wang does not cure the foregoing deficiencies of Just. Accordingly, one ordinarily skilled in the art would not have been led to modify the references to attain the subject matter of independent claim 18.
In view of the foregoing, applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of
independent claim 18 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Just in view of Wang has been overcome and should be withdrawn.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments regarding a compatibility score, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Just teaches a user making use of a conference room or other shared resource site (host). Wang teaches conversation reservation optimization method. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, a user may be offered options for booking a room or space from which to participate in the meeting, as taught by Just, with the reservation system can recommend the preferred meeting precise comparison for the user to select the conference with the highest score of meeting, as taught by Wang, so the booking meeting condition can the meet the requirement of the conference to avoid the problem of resource waste., Wang [p.8]
Just teaches a user making use of a conference room or other shared resource site. Nguyen discloses a system that obtains a message that includes inputs of the plurality of tasks and an encryptor that encrypts using public key. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, a user providing security credentials to log-into a system as taught by Just, with assigning task and an encryptor that encrypts using public key, as taught by Nguyen, to provide a solution to a security problems of processing a batch job (data) in the cloud., Nguyen [column 3 lines 22-24]
Examiner submits, the centralized scheduler is a host.
FORMAL INTERVIEW REQUEST
Applicant is encouraged to submit and Automated Interview Request or call Examiner to request an interview. Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Format https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
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 1-17 are cancelled.
Claims 18-22 are process.
Claims 23-32 are process.
Claims 33-38 are machine.
Claim 18 recites, “… storing the first set of messages…; storing the second set of messages…; receiving an incoming message from … of a candidate guest user, said incoming message comprising request data of the candidate guest user; identifying discrete portions of said incoming message, said discrete portions comprising at least time request data, space request data and candidate guest user data; extracting first the time request data from said incoming request message; extracting corresponding time offer data from a selected offer message of a candidate host user from the first set of messages; comparing said time request data with the time offer data of the selected offer message; generating a zero or positive time compatibility score in response to said comparing; if the score is a non-zero score extracting said space request data and candidate guest user data and subsequently comparing said space request data and candidate guest user data with corresponding data of the selected offer message; generating a message compatibility score in response to said subsequently comparing, wherein if said message compatibility score is equal or above a predefined threshold: generate a match message corresponding … transmit said match message …; remove said selected offer message from …; if said score is below said predefined threshold, append the incoming message in the second set ….” Claims 18-22, in view of the claim limitations, are recite the abstract idea of generating a message compatibility score, which is concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and thus, the claims fall within the mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite mental concepts, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “A computer implemented method of managing multi-user matchable messages to generate multi-user sessions, wherein at least a first set of matchable messages contains offer data of a first set of candidate host users and a second set of matchable messages contains request data of a second set of candidate host users, comprising:”, “in a first database”, “in a second database”, “a first device of a candidate guest user”, “to a multi-user session between the candidate guest user and the candidate host user;” “to the first device” in claim 18; however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Dependent claims 19-22 do not recite additional elements that are not included in the claims 18.
Although claim (s) 19-22 recite broadly recite decryption, Examiner notes encryption and decryption is a mental process of converting data to a readable form. Encryption and decrypting a puzzle involve figuring out the solution to a coded message or puzzle by using various strategies and techniques to decipher the hidden message. This can involve identifying patterns, using letter frequency analysis, and applying substitution ciphers, and thus, decryption can be completed using pen and paper. Applicant is encouraged to clarify the additional elements that are associated with the encryption and decryption.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of by the one or more processors, on the graphical user interface, the display is/are insufficient to amount to significantly more. -See MPEP 2106.05 (f).
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Dependent claim 19-22 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 18. The claims 18-22 are not patent eligible.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 23-31 recite, “ receiving … a first co-remote working session message …, said first user being the space providing user, said first co-remote working session message comprising: at least a first portion with personal data related to the space providing user,(ii) at least a second portion with first co-remote working session time and space data, said time data including at least a date and time when the space provided is available and said space data at least the address of the space provided, and(iii) at least a third portion with first desired personal data of the space requesting user for the co-remote working session; receiving … a second co-remote working session message from …, said second user being the space requesting user, said second co-remote working session message comprising: (i) at least a first portion with personal data related to the space requesting user, (ii) at least a second portion with second co-remote working session time and space data, said time data including at least a date and time when a space is requested and said space data at least the address of the second user and a desired maximum distance between the address of the second user and the address of the space requested, and(iii) at least a third portion with first desired personal data of the space providing user for the co-remote working session; comparing said received first co-remote working session message data with data from the second co-remote working session message to generate a zero or non-zero compatibility score, said comparing comprising successively comparing corresponding portions of the messages under comparison, first comparing respective portions with at least the time data and proceeding to the other respective portions only when said first comparing generates a non-zero score; and when a non-zero compatibility score is generated, transmitting … a co-remote working session match message to at least one of the first and second users. Claims 23-32, in view of the claim limitations, are recite the abstract idea of comparing said received first co-remote working session message data with data from the second co-remote working session message to generate a zero or non-zero compatibility score, which is/are concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and thus, the claims fall within the mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite mental concepts, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
The judicial exception is/are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “A computer implemented method of organizing co-remote working sessions between individuals, wherein at least one of the individuals is a space providing user, said space providing user to act as a host of a space provided by said space providing user, and at least one other individual is a space requesting user, said space requesting user to act as a guest of the space provided by the space providing user, comprising”, “at a co-remote working session scheduler”, “from a first terminal of a first user,” “at the co-remote working session scheduler,” “from the co-remote working session scheduler,” in claim 23; however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Dependent claims 22-32 do not recite additional elements that are not included in the claims 23.
Although claim (s) 23-32 recite broadly recite decryption, Examiner notes decryption is a mental process of converting data to a readable form. Decrypting a puzzle involves figuring out the solution to a coded message or puzzle by using various strategies and techniques to decipher the hidden message. This can involve identifying patterns, using letter frequency analysis, and applying substitution ciphers, and thus, decryption can be completed using pen and paper. Applicant is encouraged to clarify the additional elements that are associated with the encryption and decryption.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of by the one or more processors, on the graphical user interface, the display is/are insufficient to amount to significantly more. -See MPEP 2106.05 (f).
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Dependent claim 24-32 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 23. The claims 23-32 are not patent eligible.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 24-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 33 recites, “receiving … a first co-remote working session message … , said first user being the space providing user, said first co-remote working session message comprising: at least a first portion with personal data related to the space providing user,(ii) at least a second portion with first co-remote working session time and space data, said time data including at least a date and time when the space provided is available and said space data at least the address of the space provided, and(iii) at least a third portion with first desired personal data of the space requesting user for the co-remote working session; receiving … a second co-remote working session message from a second terminal of a second user, said second user being the space requesting user, said second co-remote working session message comprising: (i) at least a first portion with personal data related to the space requesting user, (ii) at least a second portion with second co-remote working session time and space data, said time data including at least a date and time when a space is requested and said space data at least the address of the second user and a desired maximum distance between the address of the second user and the address of the space requested, and(iii) at least a third portion with first desired personal data of the space providing user for the co-remote working session; comparing said received first co-remote working session message data with data from the second co-remote working session message to generate a zero or non-zero compatibility score, said comparing comprising successively comparing corresponding portions of the messages under comparison, first comparing respective portions with at least the time data and proceeding to the other respective portions only when said first comparing generates a non-zero score; and when a non-zero compatibility score is generated, transmitting … a co-remote working session match message to at least one of the first and second users.” Claims 33-38, in view of the claim limitations, are recite the abstract idea of generate co-remote working session match messages based on the non-zero compatibility scores, which is/are concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and thus, the claims fall within the mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite mental concepts, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception is/are not integrated into a practical application under the
second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “A co-remote working session scheduler comprising: a transceiver configured,” “a message manager configured to”, “in a memory”, “a first database coupled to the message manager and configured”, “a second database coupled to the message manager and configured to”, “the first and second databases”, “a third database”, “a fourth database”, “a message comparator coupled to the message manager”, “from the first and second databases”, “ the message comparator comprising: a tag extractor configured to”, “ thematic tags”, “ a plurality of distinct comparator modules, each configured”, “a time-space comparator module configured”, “one or more user identity comparator modules”, “a match message generator coupled to the message comparator”, in claim 33; however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f).
Dependent claims 34-38 do not recite additional elements that are not included in the claims 33.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of by the one or more processors, on the graphical user interface, the display is/are insufficient to amount to significantly more. -See MPEP 2106.05 (f).
At step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Dependent claim 34-38 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 33. The claims 34-38 are not patent eligible.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 18 -22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Just (US 10,067,802 B2 ) in view of Wang (CN 108921309 A).
Regarding Claim 18, (ORIGINAL)
A computer implemented method of managing multi-user matchable messages to generate multi-user sessions, wherein at least a first set of matchable messages contains offer data of a first set of candidate host users and a second set of matchable messages contains request data of a second set of candidate host users, comprising: storing the first set of messages in a first database; storing the second set of messages in a second database; receiving an incoming message from a first device of a candidate guest user, said incoming message comprising request data of the candidate guest user; identifying discrete portions of said incoming message, said discrete portions comprising at least time request data, space request data and candidate guest user data; extracting first the time request data from said incoming request message; extracting corresponding time offer data from a selected offer message of a candidate host user from the first set of messages; comparing said time request data with the time offer data of the selected offer message; generating a zero or positive time compatibility score in response to said comparing; if the score is a non-zero score extracting said space request data and candidate guest user data and subsequently comparing said space request data and candidate guest user data with corresponding data of the selected offer message; generating a message compatibility score in response to said subsequently comparing, wherein if said message compatibility score is equal or above a predefined threshold: generate a match message corresponding to a multi-user session between the candidate guest user and the candidate host user; transmit said match message to the first device; remove said selected offer message from the first database; if said score is below said predefined threshold, append the incoming message in the second set of the second database.
Just [abstract] teaches a user making use of a conference room (co-remote space) or other shared resource site…. The user can provide security credentials to log into the system, and the system can access the user’s calendar.; Just [041] discloses the user’s expressed preferences or settings for meetings and other telecommunications sessions, as well as their previous usage history of the room or device resources while attending such meetings..; Just [042] discloses the system can be configured to offer … user access one or more resource spaces … to help or reserve work spaces via a room resource management module 250., Just [abstract], [041]- [043].
Just [043] teaches a meeting room or other resource selected by a user. .. the room resource management module can query the communication management systems 230 as to the expected meeting start time and duration in order to ascertain whether the desired resource is in fact available (no conflict).;
Just teaches a user making use of a conference room or other shared resource site…. The user can provide security credentials to log into the system, and the system can access the user’s calendar. Just [abstract], [043].
Just [038] teaches the system 200 can ascertain that the authenticated user us given access to all resources the user is approved for. … an authentication workflow 216 by which the user identity is verified.; Just discloses an active directory identifying all active users or accounts, and thus, Just discloses multiple users accessing the system., Just [038]-[040].
Just [045] discloses a second user, accessing a meeting space to that is available until 3:15pm.; Just [047] discloses the second users can conform for the second user 320 an ‘impromptu’ room booking for use of the second room … until the start of the next reservation. … a user may review information for various meetings and events on a collaboration, calendar (calendar panel 502, 510,520, 530 meetings), or agenda component of a conferencing application., Just [048], [049][Figure 5]
See above Just [045], [047] teach meeting reservations for a meeting space. Additionally, Just [051] discloses use by the second indicator 520 (“PM Roadmap Planning Part 2”) that has an upcoming start time… the third indicator 530 is directed to a third meeting… has a different start time., Just [051], [Figure 5].
See above Just [047] teaching meeting reservation; Just [052], [Figure 5], [Figure 6 ] discloses opening a telecommunication session between the second system 350 and the event host system … the user simply presented his identification badge, selected the desired meeting from a list of his scheduled meetings and been moved seamlessly ,,, in to the connection experience.
Although highly suggested, Just does not explicitly teach:
… to generate a zero or non-zero compatibility score … generates a non- zero score; …
Wang teaches:
… to generate a zero or non-zero compatibility score … generates a non- zero score; …
Wang teaches conference room reservation optimization, the user matching degree, Wang [abstract] and Wang [p.2] teaches weighing the target degree of match score of the user requirements.
Wang [p.7], [Figure 2 step S113, S114] discloses in the conference booking tool selected in the recommend meeting the second highest score of meeting.
Wang [p.8] discloses the reservation system can recommend the preferred meeting precise comparison for the user to select the conference after several times of correction.
Just teaches a user making use of a conference room or other shared resource site. Wang teaches conversation reservation optimization method. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, a user may be offered options for booking a room or space from which to participate in the meeting, as taught by Just, with the reservation system can recommend the preferred meeting precise comparison for the user to select the conference, as taught by Wang, so the booking meeting condition can the meet the requirement of the conference to avoid the problem of resource waste., Wang [p.8]
Within claim 18, Wang discloses matching score of the user requirement and recommending ( highest, second highest based on threshold and user inputs) and thus, Wang teaches non-zero matching. Claim 18 a "Markush" claim recites a list of alternatively useable members. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20, 206 USPQ 300, 303 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). The listing of specified alternatives within a Markush claim is referred to as a Markush group or a Markush grouping. Abbott Labs v. Baxter Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 334 F.3d 1274, 1280-81, 67 USPQ2d 1191, 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing to several sources that describe Markush groups)- See MPEP 706.03.
(Although not relied on Examiner notes, Scicluna (FR 3033066 A1) teaches a reservation systems that considers a compatibility score of zero.)
Claim(s) 19, 20, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Just (US 10,067,802 B2 ) in view of Wang (CN 108921309 A) and in further view of Nguyen (US 10,067,802 B2).
Regarding Claim 19, (ORIGINAL)
The computer implemented method according to claim 18, wherein the incoming messages are encrypted and wherein extracting comprises decrypting the incoming messages.
Just [abstract], [043] and Nguyen [Figure 2] [Figure 4B],[Figure 5], [column 6 lines 5-33], [column 6 lines 58-68] –[column 7 lines 1-5], [column 7 lines 42-45],
Just teaches a user making use of a conference room or other shared resource site. Nguyen discloses a system that obtains a message that includes inputs of the plurality of tasks and an encryptor that encrypts using public key. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, a user providing security credentials to log-into a system as taught by Just, with encrypting and decrypting messages at the node, as taught by Nguyen, to provide a solution to a security problems of processing a batch job (data) in the cloud., Nguyen [column 3 lines 22-24]
Regarding Claim 20, (CURRENTLY AMENDED)
The computer implemented method according to claim 18 or 19, wherein each discrete portion is encrypted and wherein extracting comprises decrypting each discrete portion.
Just [abstract], [043] and Nguyen [Figure 2] [Figure 4B],[Figure 5], [column 6 lines 5-33], [column 6 lines 58-68] –[column 7 lines 1-5], [column 7 lines 42-45],
Just teaches a user making use of a conference room or other shared resource site. Nguyen discloses a system that obtains a message that includes inputs of the plurality of tasks and an encryptor that encrypts using public key. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, a user providing security credentials to log-into a system as taught by Just, with encrypting and decrypting messages at the node, as taught by Nguyen, to provide a solution to a security problems of processing a batch job (data) in the cloud., Nguyen [column 3 lines 22-24]
Regarding Claim 21, (ORIGINAL)
The computer implemented method according to claim 20, wherein decrypting each discrete portion comprises successively decrypting each discrete portion.
Just [abstract], [043] and Nguyen [Figure 2] [Figure 4B],[Figure 5], [column 6 lines 5-33], [column 6 lines 58-68] –[column 7 lines 1-5], [column 7 lines 42-45],
Just teaches a user making use of a conference room or other shared resource site. Nguyen discloses a system that obtains a message that includes inputs of the plurality of tasks and an encryptor that encrypts using public key. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, a user providing security credentials to log-into a system as taught by Just, with encrypting and decrypting messages at the node, as taught by Nguyen, to provide a solution to a security problems of processing a batch job (data) in the cloud., Nguyen [column 3 lines 22-24]
Regarding Claim 22, (ORIGINAL)
The computer implemented method according to claim 21, wherein successively decrypting each discrete portion comprises decrypting a first discrete portion, comparing said decrypted discrete portion with a corresponding discrete portion of a stored message, generating a non-zero compatibility score between said compared discrete portions, decrypting a next portion in response to said generating a non-zero compatibility score.
Just [abstract], [043] and Nguyen [Figure 2] [Figure 4B], [Figure 5], [column 6 lines 5-33], [column 6 lines 58-68] – [column 7 lines 1-5], [column 7 lines 42-45].
Just teaches a user making use of a conference room or other shared resource site. Nguyen discloses a system that obtains a message that includes inputs of the plurality of tasks and an encryptor that encrypts using public key. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, a user providing security credentials to log-into a system as taught by Just, with encrypting and decrypting messages at the node, as taught by Nguyen, to provide a solution to a security problem of processing a batch job (data) in the cloud., Nguyen [column 3 lines 22-24]
Claim(s) 23- 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J Wang (CN 108921309 A) in view of Weijs-Peree (2019, Analysing user preference for co-working space characteristics).
Regarding Claim 23, (NEW)
A computer implemented method of organizing co-remote working sessions between individuals, wherein at least one of the individuals is a space providing user, said space providing user to act as a host of a space provided by said space providing user, and at least one other individual is a space requesting user, said space requesting user to act as a guest of the space provided by the space providing user, comprising:
Wang teaches reserving/booking a conference room (host space). Wang [page 1]; Wang teaches the first acquisition unit for obtaining the demand information of the user, therefore, Wang teaches the first acquisition unit is the space provider., Wang [p.3].
receiving at a co-remote working session scheduler a first co-remote working session message from a first terminal of a first user, said first user being the space providing user, said first co-remote working session message comprising:(i) at least a first portion with personal data related to the space providing user, (ii) at least a second portion with first co-remote working session time and space data, said time data including at least a date and time when the space provided is available and said space data at least the address of the space provided, and(iii) at least a third portion with first desired personal data of the space requesting user for the co-remote working session;
Wang teaches obtaining the user’s demand information (e.g., time information) determine a plurality of preferred conference rooms with the highest matching scores with the demand information. Wang [p. 1], [p.2].; Wang teaches according to the required time information in the demand information, determines in all meeting rooms and match the required time., Wang [p.3]. Wang considers the hardware information in the conference room, time, whether the amount of seats can carry out the reservation, and personnel participating in the meeting., Wang [p.4].
receiving at the co-remote working session scheduler a second co-remote working session message from a second terminal of a second user, said second user being the space requesting user, said second co-remote working session message comprising: (i) at least a first portion with personal data related to the space requesting user, (ii) at least a second portion with second co-remote working session time and space data, said time data including at least a date and time when a space is requested and said space data at least the address of the second user… , and(iii) at least a third portion with first desired personal data of the space providing user for the co-remote working session;
Wang teaches user chooses an active conference room in multiple preferred rooms to carry out meeting., Wang [p.4].
Wang teaches Step S111, obtains the demand information of user, and extracts each in the demand hardware information in the demand information The weighted value of hardware information., Wang [p. 5].
Wang S111-113 and the associated text teach meeting room II is preferably recommend[ed] to user according to scoring sequence, Wang [p. 5], [Flow chart 2].
comparing said received first co-remote working session message data with data from the second co-remote working session message to generate a zero or non-zero compatibility score, said comparing comprising successively comparing corresponding portions of the messages under comparison, first comparing respective portions with at least the time data and proceeding to the other respective portions only when said first comparing generates a non-zero score; and when a non-zero compatibility score is generated, transmitting from the co-remote working session scheduler a co-remote working session match message to at least one of the first and second users.
Wang teaches determining whether the current meeting room matches with target meeting room reservations tool. The matching degree for the target meeting room as scores., Wang [p. 5].
Wang S112-113 and the associated text teach Preset algorithm can determine the scoring of the matching degree of each meeting room, then the scoring of Conference Room I is determine as 8.6 points, the scoring of Conference Room II is 9.6 points. The tool determination of meeting room reservation simultaneously meets this afternoon 14:00-17:00 meeting room. Meeting room II is preferably recommend[ed] to user according to scoring sequence, Wang [p. 5].
Although highly suggested, Wang does not explicitly teach:
and a desired maximum distance between the address of the second user and the address of the space requested
Weijs-Peree teaches:
said time data including at least a date and time when the space provided is available … a desired maximum distance between the address of the second user and the address of the space requested
Weijs-Peree teaches motivation to work at a co-working space consider accessibility of the location by car and public transport., Weijs-Peree [Table 3].
Wang teaches reservation optimization. Weijs-Peree discloses analyzing characteristics of preferred co-working spaces. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, completing user reservations, as taught by Wang, with considering the location and modes of transportation access to the co-working space, as taught by Weijs-Peree, because co-workers are more often choosing a co-working space that is close proximity to theor home ans a more central and accessible location., Weijs-Peree [p.544]
Regarding Claim 24, (NEW)
The method of claim 23, wherein when the co-remote working session match message is transmitted to only one of the first or second users and said one user accepts the session, the match message is then transmitted to the other user, and when both users accept the session is generated.
See above claim 23. Wang S111-113 and p.5.
Regarding Claim 25, (NEW)
The method of Claim 23, wherein when the co-remote working session match message is transmitted to both the first and second users, the session is considered accepted by default unless …
See above claim 23. Wang S111-113 and p.5. Conference room II.
Although highly suggested, Wang does not teach:
at least one of the users rejects the match message, in which case the session is cancelled.
Kaneko teaches:
considered accepted by default unless at least one of the users rejects the match message, in which case the session is cancelled
Kaneko teaches the when the reservation is accepted without being rejected by the relay device 1. In the example shown in FIG 6., this item is “undecided” from the time the reservation is applied to the time it is accepted, indicating the reservation information is provisional registration. … On the other hand, when the relay device 1 receives a reply to the effect the indicated by the transmitted reservation information is rejected, the reservation device 6 deletes the reservation information from the reservation information DB 624. Kaneko [p.4].
Wang teaches reservation optimization. Kaneko discloses receiving reservation information from a device. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, completing user reservations, as taught by Wang, with rejecting the reservation information, as taught by Kaneko, so the reservation is registered with then the database., Kaneko [p.3]
Regarding Claim 26, (NEW)
The computer implemented method according to claim 23, wherein the first co- remote working session message comprises a host offer message transmitted by a host terminal of a host user offering the co-remote working session, wherein: the personal data related to the space providing user includes data pertaining to the host user; the first co-remote working session space data comprises data pertaining to an offered space for the co-remote working session, including location data extracted from a geolocation service of the host terminal; and the first co-remote working session time data comprises data indicating when the offered space is available for the co-remote working session; and the first desired personal data of the space requesting user comprises data pertaining to a desired guest user to be hosted by the host user in the offered space during the co- remote working session.
See above claim 23. Wang S111-113 and the associated text., Wang [p.5].
Weijs-Peree [Table 3].
Wang teaches reservation optimization. Weijs-Peree discloses analyzing characteristics of preferred co-working spaces. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, completing user reservations, as taught by Wang, with considering the location and modes of transportation access to the co-working space, as taught by Weijs-Peree, because co-workers are more often choosing a co-working space that is close proximity to there home and a more central and accessible location., Weijs-Peree [p.544]
Regarding Claim 27, (NEW)
The computer implemented method according to claim 23, wherein the first co- remote working session message comprises a guest request message transmitted by a guest terminal of a guest user requesting the co-remote working session, wherein: the personal data related to the space providing user includes data pertaining to the guest user; the first co-remote working session space data comprises data pertaining to a desired space for the co-remote working session; the first co-remote working session time data comprises data indicating when the desired space is available for the co-remote working session; and the first desired personal data of the space requesting user comprises data pertaining to a desired host user offering the desired space during the co-remote working session.
See above claim 23. Wang S111-113 and the associated text., Wang [p.5].
Regarding Claim 28, (NEW)
The computer implemented method according to claim 23, wherein one or more co- remote working session messages are retrieved by the co-remote working session scheduler from a local or remote storage memory.
See above claim 23. Wang teaches The embodiment of the invention also provides a kind of storage mediums, are stored thereon with computer program, and the program is by processor The step of any one method in above-described embodiment 1,2 is realized when execution, The embodiment of the invention also provides a kind of computer equipment, including memory, processor and it is stored in memory Computer program that is upper and can running on a processor, the processor are realized in above-described embodiment 1,2 when executing described program The step of method described in any one., Wang [p.7].
Regarding Claim 29, (NEW)
The computer implemented method according to claim 23, wherein comparing the first co-remote working session message with the second co-remote working session message comprises: comparing the personal data related to the space providing user with the desired personal data of the space requesting user to generate a first compatibility score; comparing the first co-remote working session time and space data with the second co- remote working session time and space data to generate a second compatibility score; and comparing the desired personal data of the space providing user with the personal data related to the space requesting user to generate a third compatibility score, wherein the first and second co-remote working session messages are identified as compatible when each of the first, second, and third compatibility scores exceeds respective predefined thresholds, and an overall compatibility score is generated as a function of the first, second, and third compatibility scores.
See above claim 23. Wang S111-113 and the associated text., Wang [p.5].
Wang teaches module 101, a weighted value (third compatibility score) is more accurate for the meeting room reservation., Wang [p.7].
Regarding Claim 30, (NEW)
The computer implemented method according to claim 29, further comprising identifying a third co-remote working session message having data compatible with the first co- remote working session message, wherein: the first and third messages form a second pair; and an overall compatibility score is generated for the second pair as a function of first, second, and third compatibility scores of the third message.
See claim 29. Wang S111-113 and the associated text., Wang [p.5].
Wang teaches module 101, a weighted value (third compatibility score) is more accurate for the meeting room reservation., Wang [p.7].
Regarding Claim 31, (NEW)
The computer implemented method according to claim 30, wherein generating a match comprises selecting a match between the first co-remote working session message and the co-remote working session message, among the second and third messages, having the highest overall compatibility score.
See claim 29. Wang S111-113 and the associated text., Wang [p.5].
Wang teaches module 101, a weighted value (third compatibility score) is more accurate for the meeting room reservation., Wang [p.7].
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J Wang (CN 108921309 A) in view of Weijs-Perree (2018, Analysing user preferences fir co-working space characteristics) and in further view of Kaneko (JP 2021158466A).
Regarding Claim 32, (NEW)
The computer implemented method according to claim 23, further comprising: encrypting each portion of the co-remote working session message; decrypting first the portions with the time and space data when the comparing step is initiated; and successively decrypting additional portions only when the comparing of the time and space data generates a non-zero compatibility score.
See claim 23. Wang S111-113 and the associated text teach compatibility score., Wang [p.5], [p.7].
Although highly suggested, Wang does not teach:
Encrypting … message; decrypting … decrypting…
Kaneko teaches:
Encrypting … message; decrypting … decrypting…
Kaneko teaches the present invention performs the reservation information when the reservation information received by the processor is encrypted. Kanenko [p.3].
Kaneko teaches processor 11 of the relay device 1 may decrypt the received reservation information when the reservation information is encrypted. The relay device 1 and the reservation device 6 use Digest authentication, but communication after successful authentication by Digest authentication is performed by, for example, a protocol such as TLS (Transport Layer Security) may be encrypted., Kaneko [p.9-10]
Wang teaches reservation optimization. Kaneko discloses receiving reservation information from a device. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, completing user reservations, as taught by Wang, with encrypting and decrypting reservation information, as taught by Kaneko, because the contents of the reservation are less likely to be leaked as compared with the case where the reservation information is not encrypted., Kaneko [p.3]
Claim(s) 33-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fishberg (US 2020/0,394,728 A1) Wang (CN 108921309 A).
Regarding Claim 33, (NEW)
A co-remote working session scheduler comprising: a transceiver configured to receive co-remote working session messages from host users and guest users and transmit co-remote working session match messages;
Fishberg [0117] teaches starting at the home user interface, the customer may enter trip detail, receive search results. Variants to this flow may be understood with reference to FIG. 8. Generally, a customer with begin at home/landing interface 810. Here, the customer user is enabled to perform an item search query or time/date query by selecting one of the landing choices 820. The system scores the data in order to process for verified trend analysis with the database components to assess availability via the inventory control system. Fishberg [0117], [Figure 8].
Fishberg [004] teaches a patron-user seeking a meeting room experience during the United Nations Assembly, for example, in New York City might visit a co-working website and enter or select “New York, N.Y.” in a “city” or “destination” field on the page and enter or select a check-in date of September 1, then configure check-out for two hours later. The website would then use the patron's information to, typically manually, search its relational database for meeting rooms available in New York for said date range, presenting a list of pre-established meeting rooms within their portfolio, with available meeting rooms.
a message manager configured to store received messages in a memory and retrieve stored messages for processing; a first database coupled to the message manager and configured to store co- remote working session messages sent from space providers; a second database coupled to the message manager and configured to store co- remote working session messages sent from space requesters, the messages in the first and second databases maintained separately until a match is determined between a provider message and a requester message;
Fishberg [004] teaches relational databases are searched for meeting room availability.
Fishberg [090] teaches Data store 116 comprises one or more databases for storing customer user and affiliate user artifacts. Booking engine 120 facilitates customer search and results, hence Fishberg teaches relational database searching for meeting room available, therefore Fishberg teaches a first relational database for co- remote working session messages sent from space providers., [090], [Figure 1 – Data Store 116]
Fishberg [091] teaches ] data store 116 comprises a relational database and a non-relational database. The relational database may handle customer user artifacts; the non-relational databases may handle customizable affiliate user artifacts. The use of a non-relational database component allows the system to evolve by adapting to increasing differentiation in terms of artifact types and uses recognized and stored for recall in the systems, therefore Fishberg teaches two databases.
a third database configured to store user data and/or co-remote working session space data;
See above Fishberg [004] and Fishberg [096] teaches FIG. 3, booking engine 120. Search input form 310 allows the customer to query existing artifacts from the database.
a fourth database configured to store co-remote working session rules;
Fishberg [0111] teaches asset management dashboard 410 is both a front-end user-interface and a back-end artifact integration tool. Affiliates utilize this dashboard to upload and manage their artifact assets (referred to as Items when considering customer users) in order to render a searchable profile on the system. Fishberg [0113] teaches algorithms process items as artifacts, such as “features,” in order to segment the items within the databases, thereby enabling artifacts to be available via search input. This feature is both manually driven and dynamically according to supply and demand by means of price control., Fishberg [0111], [0113], [Figure 4]
Fishberg [0117] teaches the system, via the trip details engine, utilizes fuzzy logic and algorithms to interpret the data input. The system thereby scores the data in order to process for verified trend analysis with the database components to assess availability via the inventory control system.
Fishberg [Figure 9]- rukes/terms and conditions.
a message comparator coupled to the message manager and configured to compare received messages with retrieved messages from the first and second databases and … based on the comparisons, the message comparator comprising: a tag extractor configured to identify, extract, and compare corresponding thematic tags of the received and retrieved messages;
Fishberg teaches tags [0106] –[0109] teaches tables and tags.
Although highly suggested, Fishberg does not teach:
generate compatibility scores
Wang teaches:
generate compatibility scores
Wang teaches determining whether the current meeting room matches with target meeting room reservations tool. The matching degree for the target meeting room as scores., Wang [p. 5].
Wang S112-113 and the associated text teach Preset algorithm can determine the scoring of the matching degree of each meeting room, then the scoring of Conference Room I is determine as 8.6 points, the scoring of Conference Room II is 9.6 points. The tool determination of meeting room reservation simultaneously meets this afternoon 14:00-17:00 meeting room. Meeting room II is preferably recommend[ed] to user according to scoring sequence, Wang [p. 5].
Fishberg teaches a system and method where goods and services are offered and matched for booking and reservation. Wang teaches reservation optimization. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, booking co-working spaces at hotels, as taught by Fishberg, with scored matches, as taught by Wang, to recommend bookings based on scored matched., Wang [p.5]
a plurality of distinct comparator modules, each configured to compare different types of message portions using dedicated comparison logic corresponding to the characteristics of each portion, including: a time-space comparator module configured to compare message portions containing time data or time and space data and generate a first compatibility score;
Fishberg [004] and Fishberg [0122] teaches via times/dates selection 825, a customer user may search via item availability.
Fishberg does not explicitly teach:
and one or more user identity comparator modules configured to compare message portions containing user identification data, the user identity comparison being performed only when the first compatibility score is non-zero; and a match message generator coupled to the message comparator and configured to generate co-remote working session match messages based on the non-zero compatibility scores.
Wang teaches:
and one or more user identity comparator modules configured to compare message portions containing user identification data, the user identity comparison being performed only when the first compatibility score is non-zero; and a match message generator coupled to the message comparator and configured to generate co-remote working session match messages based on the non-zero compatibility scores.
Wang teaches determining whether the current meeting room matches with target meeting room reservations tool. The matching degree for the target meeting room as scores., Wang [p. 5].
Wang S112-113 and the associated text teach Preset algorithm can determine the scoring of the matching degree of each meeting room, then the scoring of Conference Room I is determine as 8.6 points, the scoring of Conference Room II is 9.6 points. The tool determination of meeting room reservation simultaneously meets this afternoon 14:00-17:00 meeting room. Meeting room II is preferably recommend[ed] to user according to scoring sequence, Wang [p. 5].
Fishberg teaches a system and method where goods and services are offered and matched for booking and reservation. Wang teaches reservation optimization. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, booking co-working spaces at hotels, as taught by Fishberg, with scored matches, as taught by Wang, to recommend bookings based on scored matched., Wang [p.5]
Regarding Claim 34, (NEW)
The co-remote working session scheduler according to claim 33, wherein when a received message is not matched with any corresponding retrieved message, then the message comparator informs the message manager and the message manager stores the received message in the corresponding database.
See above Fishberg [0122], [004]
Regarding Claim 35, (NEW)
The co-remote working session scheduler according to claim 33, wherein when a received message from a space provider is not matched with any corresponding retrieved message from space requesters, then the message comparator informs the message manager and the message manager stores the received message in the first database.
Fishberg [0122], [004]
Regarding Claim 36, (NEW)
The co-remote working session scheduler according to claim 33, wherein when a received message from a space requester is not matched with any corresponding retrieved message from space providers, then the message comparator informs the message manager and the message manager stores the received message in the second database.
See claim 32 above. Fishberg [004] , [0122]
Regarding Claim 37, (NEW)
The co-remote working session scheduler according to claim 33, wherein, when the message comparator qualifies multiple pairs as compatible for a given received message, each pair of the multiple pairs having a different non-zero compatibility score, then the match message generator is configured to generate a co- remote working session match message based on the pair with the highest non-zero compatibility score among the multiple pairs.
See claim 32 Fishberg and Wang.
Fishberg teaches a system and method where goods and services are offered and matched for booking and reservation. Wang teaches reservation optimization. It would have been obvious to combine before the effective filing date, booking co-working spaces at hotels, as taught by Fishberg, with scored matches, as taught by Wang, to recommend bookings based on scored matched., Wang [p.5]
Regarding Claim 38, (NEW)
A co-remote working session system comprising: a co-remote working session scheduler according to claim 33; one or more host terminals comprising a geolocation sensor and configured to generate the provider messages; and one or more guest terminals configured to generate the requester messages.
Fishberg [0120] teaches from the landing page 810, a customer may use trip details engine 822 to search via: name; destination; amenity using search input 823. In some embodiments, the “destination” input is provided by the customer device's location system 168 and may comprise the device's geolocation or detection of a proximity beacon. The data input is sourced and thereby interpreted by trip details engine 822.
Regarding Claim 39, (NEW)
The co-remote working session system according to claim 34, wherein each host terminal comprises a host offer generator configured to generate host space data,the host space data including geolocation data extracted from the geolocation sensor of the host terminal.
See above Fishberg [0122], [004], [0120]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Scicluna [ (FR 3033066 A1) teaches a reservation systems that considers a compatibility score of zero.]
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 /PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624