DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 February 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 13 has been added.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 9-12, filed 17 February 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the claims recite an improved synchronization process because the claims recite a specific structural allocation of synchronization functionality to an intermediary device and expressly excludes direct synchronization between the two primary servers.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application, such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field, as considered below in view of MPEP 2106. In particular, the inclusion of the recited intermediary device to perform data synchronization is not an improvement in technology or technical field.
Instead, the additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 12-14, filed 17 February 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below, as necessitated by the claim amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Additionally, claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but instead use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier, are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 recite(s) a system and series of steps for managing reservation data and monitoring abnormalities in a reserved area, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, and commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
The limitation(s) of, ‘manage information on a building’; ‘attract a user of the building…set a usage time and allow the user to use the building’; ‘manages customer attraction side reservation information regarding the user…’; ‘manages management side reservation information regarding the user…’; ‘obtains update of the customer attraction side reservation information… and update of the management side reservation information…’; ‘synchronizes the customer attraction side reservation information… and the management side reservation information…’; ‘reconciling updates obtained…’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘an information processing device’, ‘a management server’, ‘at least one customer attraction server’, and ‘a building monitoring device’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) ‘an information processing device’, ‘a management server’, ‘at least one customer attraction server’, ‘a building monitoring device’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘reconciling updates obtained from both the customer attraction server and the management server’).
Claim(s) 2-13 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for managing reservation data and monitoring abnormalities in a reserved area, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, and commercial or legal interactions, such as advertising, marketing, or sales activities. These concepts are grouped as mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, the claims recite(s) the additional elements of receiving and transmitting data via a communication line. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving and transmitting data), and amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data transmission, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. As detailed in MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the reception and transmission of data was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The generic functions of receiving and transmitting data are considered to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, because the functions can be summarized as the generic computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network. This is similar to how ‘using the Internet to gather data’ was found to be a well-known, routine, and conventional function in the decision of Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Elements That the Courts Have Recognized as Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity in Particular Fields). Thus, these elements amount to well‐understood, routine, and conventional elements previously known to the industry, which does not add significantly more, and therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept, and therefore, the claim(s) is/are not eligible.
As analyzed above, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-13 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20110099038), in view of Tokuchi ‘315 (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190130315), in further view of Mettu (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180218024).
In regards to claim 1, Nishida teaches A building monitoring system comprising: an information processing device; a management server connected to the information processing device and configured to manage information on a building; and at least one customer attraction server connected to the information processing device and configured to attract a user of the building via a communication line, and set a usage time and allow the user to use the building (Nishida: ¶70-90 & Fig. 2 disclose a reservation system comprising a lodging reservation site server (i.e., customer attraction server), a server of franchise hotel (i.e., management server), and a franchise hotel management server (i.e., information processing device) connected via a communication network).
Although Nishida teaches managing reservation information wherein the reservation information includes location, room type, and date, the reference does not explicitly state wherein the reservation information includes a usage start time and a usage end time.
However, Nishida and Tokuchi ‘315 together teach:
wherein: the customer attraction server comprises a customer attraction server side control means that controls the customer attraction server (Nishida: ¶72-73 & Fig. 2 disclose a central processing unit configured to control the lodging reservation site server (i.e., customer attraction server));
the customer attraction server side control means comprises a customer attraction side reservation manager that is connected to a user input means for receiving information input to the customer attraction server via the communication line, and manages customer attraction side reservation information regarding the user received via the user input means including reservation date and time including usage start time and usage end time set by reservation (Nishida: ¶72-73, ¶90-93, ¶108-109, & Figs. 2, 11, & 15 disclose wherein the lodging reservation site server (i.e., customer attraction server) comprises an input data receiving means that receives a user reservation request, via a input unit connected via the communication network, and manages the reservation request comprising a reservation location and reservation date; Tokuchi ‘315: ¶137-143, ¶183-185, Figs. 12, 18A-18C disclose wherein the reservation information includes the usage start time and usage end time of the reservation);
the management server comprises a management server side control means that controls the management server (Nishida: ¶87 & Fig. 2 disclose a central processing unit configured to control the server of franchise hotel (i.e., management server));
the management server side control means comprises a management side reservation manager that manages management side reservation information regarding the user including the reservation date and time including the usage start time and the usage end time set by the reservation (Nishida: ¶87-89, ¶100, ¶105, ¶118, Figs. 2, 11, & 15 disclose wherein the server of franchise hotel (i.e., management server) comprises a data updating means that receives and stores user reservation information comprising a reservation location and reservation date; Tokuchi ‘315: ¶137-143, ¶183-185, Figs. 12, 18A-18C disclose wherein the reservation information includes the usage start time and usage end time of the reservation);
the information processing device comprises an information processing device side control means that controls the information processing device (Nishida: ¶84 & Fig. 2 disclose a central processing unit configured to control the franchise hotel management server (i.e., information processing device)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reservation time information, as taught by Tokuchi ‘315, into the system and method of Nishida. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “present available spaces in consideration of current reservation conditions” and “confirm a reservation of a space selected by the user” (Tokuchi ‘315: ¶168).
Additionally, although Nishida teaches a central processing unit configured to control the franchise hotel management server (i.e., information processing device) and synchronize and store reservation information received from the lodging reservation site server (i.e., customer attraction server) and reservation information received from the server of franchise hotel (i.e., management server), the reference does not explicitly state reconciling updates from each server.
However, Nishida and Mettu together teach:
the information processing device side control means comprises:
an information obtainer that obtains update of the customer attraction side reservation information of the customer attraction server and update of the management side reservation information of the management server (Nishida: ¶84, ¶94-95, ¶97-105, ¶109-110, ¶118, ¶157, ¶160, ¶166-168, Figs. 2, 11, & 15 disclose wherein the franchise hotel management server (i.e., information processing device) comprises a receiving/transmission means configured to receive updated reservation information from the lodging reservation site server (i.e., customer attraction server) and the server of franchise hotel (i.e., management server)); and
a synchronization controller that, without direct synchronization between the customer attraction server and the management server (Nishida: ¶84, ¶94-95, ¶97-105, ¶109-110, ¶118, ¶157, ¶160, ¶166-168, Figs. 2, 11, & 15 disclose wherein the franchise hotel management server (i.e., information processing device), an intermediatory device, comprises a vacancy data updating means configured to synchronize and store reservation information received from the lodging reservation site server (i.e., customer attraction server) and reservation information received from the server of franchise hotel (i.e., management server)), that synchronizes the customer attraction side reservation information of the customer attraction server and the management side reservation information of the management server by reconciling updates obtained from both the customer attraction server and the management server (Nishida: ¶84, ¶94-95, ¶97-105, ¶109-110, ¶118, ¶157, ¶160, ¶166-168, Figs. 2, 11, & 15; Mettu: ¶12-13, ¶16-19, ¶24, ¶26 disclose syncing the reservation information from the plurality of storage node servers).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reservation information synchronization, as taught by Mettu, into the system and method of Nishida and Tokuchi ‘315. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide data consistency, reliability, and redundancy” (Mettu: ¶16).
In regards to claim 2, Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, and Mettu teach the building monitoring system of claim 1. Although Nishida teaches of a reservation system comprising a lodging reservation site server (i.e., customer attraction server), a server of franchise hotel (i.e., management server), and a franchise hotel management server (i.e., information processing device) connected via a communication network (Nishida: ¶70-90 & Fig. 2), the reference does not explicitly state issuing a key to unlock the building.
However, Tokuchi ‘315 further teaches wherein the information processing device further comprises a key issuer that issues an unlocking key for unlocking a locking device of the building when an update of the customer attraction side reservation information is obtained (Tokuchi ‘315: ¶36-41, ¶72, ¶86, ¶89 disclose generating and issuing electronic keys to a user based on received reservation information, wherein the electronic key unlocks a door locking system associated with the user’s reservation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electronic key issuing, as taught by Tokuchi ‘315, into the system and method of Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, and Mettu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that the “authentication of the users may be performed” (Tokuchi ‘315: ¶38).
In regards to claim 13, Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, and Mettu teach the building monitoring system of claim 1. Although Nishida teaches a central processing unit configured to control the franchise hotel management server (i.e., information processing device) and synchronize and store reservation information received from the lodging reservation site server (i.e., customer attraction server) and reservation information received from the server of franchise hotel (i.e., management server), the reference does not explicitly state comparing reservation information, detecting inconsistencies, and making updates.
However, Nishida and Mettu together teach wherein the synchronization controller compares reservation information received from the customer attraction server and reservation information received from the management server to detect inconsistencies and updates at least one of the customer attraction side reservation information and the management side reservation information based on the comparison (Nishida: ¶84, ¶94-95, ¶97-105, ¶109-110, ¶118, ¶157, ¶160, ¶166-168, Figs. 2, 11, & 15 disclose wherein the franchise hotel management server (i.e., information processing device), an intermediatory device, comprises a vacancy data updating means configured to synchronize and store reservation information received from the lodging reservation site server (i.e., customer attraction server) and reservation information received from the server of franchise hotel (i.e., management server); Mettu: ¶12-13, ¶16-19, ¶24, ¶26 disclose syncing the reservation information from the plurality of storage node servers based on identified inconsistencies).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the reservation information comparison and synchronization, as taught by Mettu, into the system and method of Nishida and Tokuchi ‘315. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “provide data consistency, reliability, and redundancy” (Mettu: ¶16).
Claim(s) 3 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20110099038), in view of Tokuchi ‘315 (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190130315), in further view of Mettu (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180218024) and Tokuchi ‘078 (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210227078).
In regards to claim 3, Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, and Mettu teach the building monitoring system of claim 1. Although Nishida teaches of a reservation system comprising a franchise hotel management server (i.e., information processing device) connected to a communication network (Nishida: ¶70-90 & Fig. 2), the reference does not explicitly state a building monitoring device configured to detect an abnormality and send a notification.
However, Tokuchi ‘078 teaches:
a building monitoring device that is provided inside a building and monitors an inside of the building (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶26, ¶29, ¶33, ¶36-37, ¶43 discloses a booth controller configured to control and monitor a reserved area);
wherein the management server is connected to the building monitoring device via the communication line and manages the building monitoring device (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29, ¶33, ¶35-37, ¶43, ¶77, ¶82 disclose a reservation management server connected to the booth controller via a communication network);
the building monitoring device comprises a building monitoring device side control means that controls the building monitoring device; the building monitoring device side control means comprises an abnormality notifier that notifies the management server via the communication line when an abnormality having occurred inside the building is detected (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29, ¶33, ¶35-37, ¶43 disclose wherein the booth controller is configured to collect sensor data and notify the reservation management server upon the occurrence of an abnormality); and
the management server side control means comprises an abnormality annunciator that announces the abnormality to an administrator when the abnormality is notified of by the abnormality notifier (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29, ¶33, ¶35-37, ¶43 disclose wherein the reservation management server is configured to notify a service provider upon the occurrence of an abnormality).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the building monitoring device, as taught by Tokuchi ‘078, into the system and method of Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, and Mettu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “receive an alert about a trouble that occurs” (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29).
In regards to claim 8, Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, and Tokuchi ‘078 teach building monitoring system of claim 3. Although Tokuchi ‘078 teaches of a reservation management server connected to a booth controller via a communication network (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29, ¶33, ¶35-37, ¶43, ¶77, ¶82), the reference does not explicitly state receiving commands from the management server and executing the received commands.
However, Tokuchi ‘078 and Tokuchi ‘315 together teach wherein: the management server side control means comprises: a command generator that generates a command to the building monitoring device on the basis of the management side reservation information; and a command transmitter that transmits the command to the building monitoring device via the communication line (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29, ¶33, ¶35-37, ¶43, ¶77, ¶82 discloses a reservation management server connected to a booth controller (i.e., building monitoring device) via a communication network; Tokuchi ‘315: ¶39-41, ¶63, ¶76-77, ¶85, ¶90, ¶109, ¶159-162, ¶183-185 disclose wherein the reservation management server comprises a CPU and a communication interface configured to generate and communicate instructions to a control unit of the reserved space (i.e., building monitoring device)); and the building monitoring device side control means comprises: a command receiver that receives the command from the command transmitter; and a command executor that executes a predetermined operation on the basis of the command received by the command receiver (Tokuchi ‘315: ¶60-64, ¶81-99, ¶103-108 disclose wherein the control unit of the reserved space is configured to receive and execute instructions).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the instruction execution, as taught by Tokuchi ‘315, into the system and method of Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, and Tokuchi ‘078. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “collect information from the devices connected to the LAN and that control the operation of the devices” (Tokuchi ‘315: ¶85).
In regards to claim 9, Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, and Tokuchi ‘078 teach the building monitoring system of claim 8. Tokuchi ‘315 further teaches wherein: the command generator generates an announcement command to announce the usage end time on the basis of the management side reservation information; and the command executor announces the usage end time to the user on the basis of the announcement command (Tokuchi ‘315: ¶60-64, ¶81-99, ¶103-108, ¶111, ¶154, ¶183 disclose wherein the control unit controls a speaker and a display configured to notify the user of the reservation end time).
In regards to claim 10, Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, and Tokuchi ‘078 teach the building monitoring system of claim 8. Tokuchi ‘315 further teaches wherein: the management side reservation manager manages the management side reservation information including a reservation status after the usage end time; the command generator generates an extension command to announce whether the usage time can be extended according to the reservation status on the basis of the management side reservation information; and the command executor announces to the user whether the usage time can be extended on the basis of the extension command (Tokuchi ‘315: ¶60-64, ¶81-99, ¶103-108, ¶111, ¶115, ¶150-168, ¶183 disclose determining whether the current reservation can be extended based on the stored upcoming reservation information and notifying the user that the current reservation end time can be extended).
In regards to claim 11, Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, and Tokuchi ‘078 teach the building monitoring system of claim 8. Tokuchi ‘315 further teaches wherein: the building monitoring device comprises an input receiving means that receives input of an application for extension by a user; the building monitoring device side control means comprises an application transmitter that transmits the application for extension to the management server via the communication line when the input of the application for extension is received by the input receiving means; the management server side control means comprises an application receiver that receives the application for extension transmitted from the application transmitter; and the management side reservation manager changes the usage end time and updates the management side reservation information on the basis of the application for extension received by the application receiver (Tokuchi ‘315: ¶60-64, ¶81-99, ¶103-108, ¶111, ¶115, ¶150-168, ¶183 disclose receiving, via an input device, a request to extend a current reservation, updating a reservation end time, and notifying the user of the new reservation end time).
In regards to claim 12, Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, and Tokuchi ‘078 teach the building monitoring system of claim 8. Tokuchi ‘315 further teaches wherein: the building monitoring device comprises a presence detection means that detects presence of a user inside the building; the building monitoring device side control means comprises a presence notifier that notifies the management server of the presence of the user via the communication line when the presence detection means detects the presence of the user; the management server side control means comprises a presence manager that manages presence information of the user notified by the presence notifier; the command generator generates a warning command to announce a warning to the user when the user is present even after the usage end time on the basis of the management side reservation information and the presence information; and the command executor announces to the user that the usage end time has passed on the basis of the warning command (Tokuchi ‘315: ¶60-64, ¶81-99, ¶103-108, ¶111, ¶115, ¶150-168, ¶183 disclose a plurality of devices configured to detect and notify the system of the presence of a user, wherein upon detection of a user, the control unit of the reserved space may notify the user of the reservation end time).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20110099038), in view of Tokuchi ‘315 (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190130315), in further view of Mettu (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180218024), Tokuchi ‘078 (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210227078), and Chan (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20150323943).
In regards to claim 4, Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, and Tokuchi ‘078 teach the building monitoring system of claim 3. Although Tokuchi ‘078 teaches of a locking device configured to lock and unlock the reservation area door (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29, ¶40-41), the reference does not explicitly state determining whether the locking device has been normally unlocked.
However, Tokuchi ‘078 and Chan together teach wherein: the building monitoring device is connected to a locking device of the building via a communication line (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶26, ¶29, ¶33, ¶36-37, ¶43 discloses a booth controller configured to control and monitor a reserved area, including the door locking device); and the building monitoring device side control means comprises a locking device determiner that determines whether the locking device has been normally unlocked, and detects the abnormality having occurred inside the building when the locking device determiner has determined that the locking device has not been normally unlocked (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29, ¶33, ¶35-37, ¶43 disclose wherein the booth controller is configured to collect sensor data and notify the reservation management server upon the occurrence of an abnormality; Chan: ¶67-69 disclose determining an unauthorized attempt to switch the locking device from the locked state to the unlocked state, and sending an alert in response).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the locking device determination, as taught by Chan, into the system and method of Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, and Tokuchi ‘078. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “determine and set the operative modes of selected devices related with the rented room…in accordance with preset operating parameters or user authorization” (Chan: ¶13).
In regards to claim 5, Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, Tokuchi ‘078, and Chan teach building monitoring system of claim 4.
Chan and Tokuchi ‘315 together further teach wherein: the building monitoring device comprises a customer service means that serves the user of the building; and the building monitoring device side control means comprises a customer service executor that executes customer service by the customer service means when the locking device determiner determines that the locking device is normally unlocked (Chan: ¶67-69 disclose verifying that the user unlocking the locking device is an authorized user; Tokuchi ‘315: ¶60-64, ¶81-99, ¶111 disclose a control unit of the reserved space (i.e., building monitoring device) for controlling a display device configured to present customer service information to the user).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the customer service execution, as taught by Tokuchi ‘315, into the system and method of Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, Tokuchi ‘078, and Chan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “collect information from the devices connected to the LAN and that control the operation of the devices” (Tokuchi ‘315: ¶85).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishida (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20110099038), in view of Tokuchi ‘315 (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190130315), in further view of Mettu (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20180218024), Tokuchi ‘078 (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210227078), and Fujie (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20050179553).
In regards to claim 6, Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, and Tokuchi ‘078 teach building monitoring system of claim 3. Although Tokuchi ‘078 teaches of a surveillance camera configured to monitor the reserved area (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29, ¶37, ¶43), the reference does not explicitly state comparing behavior patterns to determine an abnormality.
However, Tokuchi ‘078 and Fujie together teach wherein: the building monitoring device comprises an image capturing means that captures an image of the inside of the building (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29, ¶37, ¶43 discloses a surveillance camera configured to capture an image of the reserved area); and the building monitoring device side control means comprises: a storage that stores a sample of a normal behavior pattern of the user of the building (Fujie: ¶13, ¶17, ¶21-26, ¶34, ¶46 disclose storing reference data wherein the reference data comprises a normal movement pattern of an authorized user); a behavior pattern obtainer that obtains the behavior pattern of the user of the building on the basis of the image captured by the image capturing means; and a behavior pattern determiner that compares the sample of the normal behavior pattern stored in the storage with the behavior pattern obtained by the behavior pattern obtainer, determines whether there is a difference between the sample of the normal behavior pattern and the obtained behavior pattern, and detects the abnormality having occurred inside the building when the behavior pattern determiner has determined that there is the difference between the sample of the normal behavior pattern and the obtained behavior pattern (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29, ¶33, ¶35-37, ¶43 disclose wherein the booth controller is configured to collect sensor data and notify the reservation management server upon the occurrence of an abnormality; Fujie: ¶13-14, ¶17-18, ¶21-22, ¶25-26, ¶33-35, ¶39, ¶46 disclose capturing a behavior pattern of the user via camera devices and comparing the captured behavior pattern to the reference behavior pattern to determine whether there is a difference between the behavior patterns and sending an alert in response).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the behavior pattern comparison, as taught by Fujie, into the system and method of Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, and Tokuchi ‘078. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “automatically raise an alert against non-authorized person…securely exclude a non-authorized person who attempts to intrude on an area needing security” (Fujie: ¶42).
In regards to claim 7, Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, and Tokuchi ‘078 teach building monitoring system of claim 3. Although Tokuchi ‘078 teaches of a surveillance camera configured to monitor the reserved area (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29, ¶37, ¶43), the reference does not explicitly state comparing behavior patterns to determine an abnormality.
However, Tokuchi ‘078 and Fujie together teach wherein the building monitoring device comprises an image capturing means that captures an image of the inside of the building (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29, ¶37, ¶43 discloses a surveillance camera configured to capture an image of the reserved area); and the building monitoring device side control means comprises: a storage that stores a sample of an abnormal behavior pattern of the user of the building (Fujie: ¶13, ¶17, ¶21-26, ¶34, ¶46 disclose storing reference data wherein the reference data comprises a normal movement pattern of an authorized user); a behavior pattern obtainer that obtains the behavior pattern of the user of the building on the basis of the image captured by the image capturing means; and a behavior pattern determiner that compares the sample of the abnormal behavior pattern stored in the storage with the behavior pattern obtained by the behavior pattern obtainer, determines whether the sample of the abnormal behavior pattern and the obtained behavior pattern match, and detects the abnormality having occurred inside the building when the behavior pattern determiner has determined that the sample of the abnormal behavior pattern and the obtained behavior pattern match (Tokuchi ‘078: ¶29, ¶33, ¶35-37, ¶43 disclose wherein the booth controller is configured to collect sensor data and notify the reservation management server upon the occurrence of an abnormality; Fujie: ¶13-14, ¶17-18, ¶21-22, ¶25-26, ¶33-35, ¶39, ¶46 disclose capturing a behavior pattern of the user via camera devices and comparing the captured behavior pattern to the reference behavior pattern to determine whether there is a difference between the behavior patterns and sending an alert in response).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the behavior pattern comparison, as taught by Fujie, into the system and method of Nishida, Tokuchi ‘315, Mettu, and Tokuchi ‘078. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “automatically raise an alert against non-authorized person…securely exclude a non-authorized person who attempts to intrude on an area needing security” (Fujie: ¶42).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE S MURRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on (571) 272-5587. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628