DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is a non-final, first office action in response to the Applicant's Request for Continued Prosecution filed 24 May 2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 5-8 have been added.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 May 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 5 of their response, “Claim 1 now requires that the management server store a target sales or occupancy rate threshold for a predetermined future period, forecast a sales or occupancy rate for that predetermined future period based on stored management side reservation information, determine whether the target can be achieved during that future period based on the forecast, and, based on that determination, reconfigure the reservation intake pathway such that only one of two defined user groups is enabled to submit reservation requests during a specified period while the other group is disabled. These are not mental steps or generic automation of business judgment. They define a specific control mechanism implemented at the server level that dynamically reconfigures how reservation requests are received and processed.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With respect to the amended claims, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has amended claim 1 to state, “a goal information setter that stores and sets a target sales or occupancy rate threshold for a predetermined future period of the on-demand rental facility in the management information storage; a goal achievement determiner that determines whether the target sales or occupancy rate threshold can be achieved during the predetermined future period by (i) forecasting a sales or occupancy rate for the predetermined future time period based on the management side reservation information and (ii) comparing the forecasted sales or occupancy rate with the target sales or occupancy rate threshold set by the goal information setter; and a user group switcher that causes the user group setter to switch the group of users based on a determination result of the goal achievement determiner; wherein the switching comprises enabling receipt of reservation requests via the user input means from only one of the first or second group of users during a specified period and disabling receipt of reservation requests from the other of the first or second group of users during the specified period.” Thus, as shown and emphasized here, the Applicant has amended the claim to recite setting and storing a target sales or occupancy rate threshold for a predetermined future period of the on-demand rental facility, determining whether the target sales or occupancy rate threshold can be achieved during the predetermined future period by forecasting a sales or occupancy rate for the predetermined future time period and comparing the forecasted sales or occupancy rate with the target, switching the group of users that have their requests enabled to be received based on a determination during a specified period and disabling receipt of reservation requests from the other during the period. As such, the Applicant’s amended claim is directed towards setting the target for an occupancy rate or sales, determining if the target can be achieved based on the forecasting sales/occupancy rate and comparing the forecast the target, and changing groups who’s reservation requests will be accepted or not accepted based on the determination; which is the management of commercial activities (sales activities, business relations), specifically determining if target sales can be reached and changing who can request reservations based on the determination. Further, this recited concepts are elements that can be performed in the human mind, such as by a sales manager using their mind to observe sales, evaluate them and forecasted trends based on a goal, and determining who to accept reservation requests from based on said evaluation; thus, the claims recite elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, opinion, judgement). Therefore, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, the claimed elements do in fact recite mental processes and managing commercial activity, and the Examiner is not persuaded of error. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on pages 5 and 6 of their response, “In particular, the amended claims require a forward-looking forecasting operation tied to stored reservation records that include users and use date/time information. The goal achievement determiner does not merely compare a present sales tally to a target; it forecasts sales or occupancy for a defined future interval and determines achievability of a threshold during that interval. This forward-looking computational operation improves the functioning of the reservation server itself by enabling proactive, system-level reconfiguration before underperformance occurs. The specification describes forecasting sales for a predetermined period based on reservation information and comparing the forecast to business goal information (see, e.g., [0102]). Implementing this forecast-based achievability determination within the management server provides a concrete improvement in how reservation systems allocate access and capacity over time.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “The goal achievement determiner does not merely compare a present sales tally to a target; it forecasts sales or occupancy for a defined future interval and determines achievability of a threshold during that interval,” the Examiner notes that comparing forecasted sales or occupancy rate to a target and determining if the target can be achieved recites the abstract idea, as discussed above. Second, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “This forward-looking computational operation improves the functioning of the reservation server itself by enabling proactive, system-level reconfiguration before underperformance occurs,” the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, as discussed above, forecasting sales/occupancy rates, comparing this forecast to a goal to determine if the goal can be reached, and switching groups of users who can request a reservation based on the determination, is purely an abstract idea. Notably, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion regarding, “system-level reconfiguration before underperformance occurs,” the “system level reconfiguration” referenced is merely which party can request a reservation, and is not aspect of a server itself. Further, nothing in the claims are directed towards changing any functionality or improving functionality of a server itself (i.e. faster processing, less memory usage, etc.), and instead, the recited management server is merely being invoked as a tool to carry out the recited abstract idea. Further, the argued “underperformance,” is merely a level of sales/occupancy rate, which is a business problem, and not a technological problem in the server. Thus, the Applicant’s argument has failed to show that the claims recite improvement in the functioning of a computer, another technology or technical field. Third, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “The specification describes forecasting sales for a predetermined period based on reservation information and comparing the forecast to business goal information (see, e.g., [0102]). Implementing this forecast-based achievability determination within the management server provides a concrete improvement in how reservation systems allocate access and capacity over time,” the Examiner is not persuaded of improvements in computer functionality. With regards to paragraph 102, the Applicant’s specification states, “After executing the business goal setting determination processing of Step ST322, or if it is determined in Step ST321 that the setting of the business goals is not requested, the business goal achievement determiner 315 determines in Step ST323 whether the business goals can be achieved on the basis of the management side reservation information 321 and the business goal information 323 stored in the management information storage 32. For example, the business goal achievement determiner 315 grasps the occupancy rate of the room 20 on the basis of the current management side reservation information 321, and forecasts the sales of the room 20 in a predetermined period (one day, one week, one month, or the like). Then, sales forecast in this predetermined period is compared with the business goal information 323, and it is determined whether the business goals can be achieved.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the cited paragraph merely sets forth the abstract idea, as discussed above, and does not disclose any features discussing improvements in computer functionality. Further, with regards to the Applicant’s argument regarding improvements in how reservation systems allocate access and capacity over time, it is noted that nothing in the claims refer to capacity, and instead, merely refers to switching which groups of customers can request reservations, which is selecting which customers to have, and thus, is managing sales activities. As such, the Applicant has failed to show that the claims recite elements that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field; and instead, the Applicant has merely directed to the claims towards the management of commercial activity (sales activities and business relations), and the performance of mental processes; wherein the management server is being invoked as a tool to carry out the recited abstract idea. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 6 of their response, “Further, the amended switching limitation requires that the management server reconfigure the reservation intake path such that, during a specified period, only one of the first or second user groups is enabled to submit reservation requests and the other group is disabled. This is not a mere pricing adjustment or abstract marketing rule. It is a modification to the access-control logic of the reservation system that governs which reservation requests are accepted and processed by the server. By exclusively enabling one group and disabling the other, the system dynamically alters its request-handling behavior at the network interface level. This constitutes an improvement in the operation of the reservation management technology itself, because the server's intake, authorization, and reservation processing logic are programmatically reconfigured in response to computed performance forecasts.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the, “switching limitation requires that the management server reconfigure the reservation intake path such that, during a specified period, only one of the first or second user groups is enabled to submit reservation requests and the other group is disabled,” and that, “This is not a mere pricing adjustment or abstract marketing rule. It is a modification to the access-control logic of the reservation system that governs which reservation requests are accepted and processed by the server,” the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, nothing in the claims or specification discusses “intake paths,” and thus the Applicant’s arguments regarding such are beyond the scope of the claims. Further, as noted and discussed above, switching which group of users are able to submit reservation requests to the server (i.e. the merchant), encompasses selecting which group of customers are able to purchase goods/services, and blocking or ignoring other parties, which is purely a commercial activity. That is, the Applicant’s claims recite managing sales activities and business relations, and are not directed towards improvements in server functionality; therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded of error. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that, “By exclusively enabling one group and disabling the other, the system dynamically alters its request-handling behavior at the network interface level. This constitutes an improvement in the operation of the reservation management technology itself, because the server's intake, authorization, and reservation processing logic are programmatically reconfigured in response to computed performance forecasts,” the Examiner is not persuaded. In particular, nothing in the claims or specification refers to a “network interface level,” and thus, the Applicant’s argument is beyond the scope of the claims. Notably, claim 1 states, “wherein the switching comprises enabling receipt of reservation requests via the user input means from only one of the first or second group of users during a specified period and disabling receipt of reservation requests from the other of the first or second group of users during the specified period.” As shown here, the Applicant’s claims encompass the management server (i.e. seller) allowing reservation requests from one group of users, and disabling receipt of reservation requests from another group; which is merely selecting one group of customers that can conduct commerce and ignoring other customers; which, as discussed above, is managing commercial activity and mental processes. Specifically with regards to the Applicant’s argument that, “this constitutes an improvement in the operation of the reservation management technology itself, because the server's intake, authorization, and reservation processing logic are programmatically reconfigured in response to computed performance forecasts,” the Examiner is not persuaded, as the Applicant has failed to provide any showing in the claims that reflect improvements in the server functionality itself. As noted above, nothing in the claims or specification references a server’s “intake,” and nothing in the claims or specification references a server’s “authorization.” Thus, these aspects are beyond the scope of the claims and would not be relevant to determining if the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter. Additionally, with regards to “programmatically” reconfiguring processing logic, the Applicant has failed to show where this occurs in the claims. As discussed above, the claims do recite switching the groups that has their reservation requests accepted; however this switching does not change any functionality of the server itself, nor does it reconfigure the server. Instead, this switching is merely selecting which customer group can participate in commerce, which is an abstract idea; thus, the Examiner is not persuaded that the claims recite improvements in technology. The Examiner additionally notes that MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” (Emphasis added). In this case, the Applicant has failed to show that their specification sets forth an improvement in technology, specifically the functioning of a server, and instead, the Applicant has merely asserted the improvement while discussing the abstract concepts. Further, MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” (Emphasis added). As shown here, an improvement in the abstract idea itself, is not an improvement in technology. Like this showing, the Applicant’s improvements in the business process by selecting which customers can make reservation requests based on forecasted sales and goals, is not an improvement in technology, and instead, the server is merely acting as a tool to carry out the abstract idea. Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded, and the Examiner maintains that this rejection is not proper.
The Applicant continues on page 6 of their response, “The newly added dependent claims further reinforce this technological integration. For example, the claim requiring forecasting based on a ratio of reserved time slots to available time slots ties the achievability determination to concrete data structures representing time-slot availability and reservations. The claim aligning the specified switching period with the predetermined future period creates a defined temporal control relationship between forecasting and system reconfiguration. The claim requiring automatic switching without additional administrator input confirms that the reconfiguration is performed by the server as part of its programmed operation, not by manual human intervention. The claim requiring successive switching in response to successive determinations establishes a feedback loop within the server architecture. Together, these features define a closed-loop, automated control system embedded in the reservation management server.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. With respect to the new dependent claims, the Examiner notes, as addressed in the rejection below, that these do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. With respect to claim 5, the claims further describe calculating the expected occupancy rate based on a ratio of reserved time slots to available time slots; which is merely further reciting the abstract idea of forecasting occupancy rate during a period of time, and in this case, merely basing in on a ratio of reserved slots to available slots; which is the management of commercial activity and mental processes. Further, with respect to claim 6, the claims further recite the specified period of time refers to a future period of time, which merely narrows the field of use; and does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. Further, with respect to claim 7, the claims further recite performing the switching after the target is determined to be achievable, which further recites the abstract idea of managing commercial interactions and mental processes. Notably, the step of “automatically” performing this, is merely invoking a computer as a tool carry out the abstract idea, which does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. Further, with respect to claim 8, the claims further recite conditions for enabling only the first group or second group of customers to submit requests, which merely narrows the field of use; and does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. As such, the new dependent claims do not transform the recited claims into patent eligible subject matter. In addition, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that these claims, “define a closed-loop, automated control system embedded in the reservation management server,” the Examiner notes that nothing in the claims discusses a “closed-loop” architecture, nor is it clear why making a closed-loop system transform the otherwise abstract idea into something significantly more. Further, it is noted that the dependent claims are each dependent off of claim 1, and thus, taking them all into consideration in a single evaluation would be improper, as they do not rely on each other to set the bounds of the claimed invention. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on pages 6 and 7 of their response, “Under Step 2A Prong Two, a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies the alleged abstract idea in a manner that improves the functioning of a computer or other technology. Here, the claimed subject matter improves the functioning of a computerized reservation platform by (i) performing forecast-based achievability analysis over a predetermined future period using stored reservation data and (ii) automatically reconfiguring exclusive reservation eligibility at the server intake level based on that analysis. These limitations go beyond merely using a computer as a tool to perform business calculations; they define a specific technological solution to the problem of dynamically controlling reservation access in a multi-user, time-slot-based booking system.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the bounds of the claimed invention, and the grounds of the previous and current rejection. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claims, “improves the functioning of a computerized reservation platform by (i) performing forecast-based achievability analysis over a predetermined future period using stored reservation data and (ii) automatically reconfiguring exclusive reservation eligibility at the server intake level based on that analysis,” the Examiner is not persuaded. As noted and discussed above, performing a forecast-based achievability analysis over a predetermined future period using stored reservation data and automatically switching reservation eligibility, is the abstract idea itself, and not computer functionality. Further, as noted and discussed above, nothing in the claims or specification involves a “server intake level,” nor do these disclose improving an intake process of a server; and instead, the claims merely refer to switching which group of customers are able to request reservations, which is an abstract idea. Further, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has failed to provide any evidence to the argued improvements. As noted and discussed above with respect to MPEP 2106.05(a), the Applicant’s specification must set forth and describe the improvement in computer functionality, another technology, or technical field; and in this case, the Applicant has failed to identify any portion of the specification which accomplishes this requirement. Instead, the Applicant has referenced the claims, along with aspects not found in the claims or specification, and asserted that they encompass an improvement; however, as shown and discussed above, the argued elements merely recite the abstract idea, with the use of a generic computer element (server) as a tool to carry out the abstract idea. As such the Examiner is not persuaded that these elements add significantly more to the abstract idea. The Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “administrator input means,” “user input means” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, the “administrator input means” and the “user input means” are both considered to comprise one of a mobile phone, a smartphone, or a personal computer, as described in paragraph 24 of the Applicant’s submitted specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant has amended the claim to recite, “wherein the switching comprises enabling receipt of reservation requests via the user input means from only one of the first or second group of users during a specified period and disabling receipt of reservation requests from the other of the first or second group of users during the specified period.” The Applicant has failed to provided support in their original written description that would convey to one skilled in the art that they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In this case, the Applicant has amended the claim to state, “disabling receipt of reservation requests from the other of the first or second group of users during the specified period,” however, no support in their specification has been provided by the Applicant, nor has the Examiner found any discussion with regards to disabling receipt of requests, nor has the specification described blocking requests from users. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-3 and 5-8 depend upon claim 1 and therefore are rejected via dependency.
With respect to claim 5, the Applicant claims, “wherein the goal achievement determiner forecasts the sales or occupancy rate for the predetermined future period by calculating an expected occupancy rate based on a ratio of reserved time slots to available time slots stored in the management side reservation information.” The Applicant has failed to provided support in their original written description that would convey to one skilled in the art that they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In this case, the Applicant has failed to provide written description support for calculating an expected occupancy rate based on a ratio of reserved time slots to available time slots stored in the management side reservation information. Appropriate correction is required.
With respect to claim 8, the Applicant claims, “wherein the user group setter is configured to switch between enabling only the first group of users to submit reservation requests and enabling only the second group of users to submit reservation requests in response to successive determinations of the goal achievement determiner.” The Applicant has failed to provided support in their original written description that would convey to one skilled in the art that they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In this case, the Applicant has failed to provide written description support for switching between enabling only the first group of users to submit reservation requests and enabling only the second group of users to submit reservation requests in response to successive determinations of the goal achievement determiner. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a management server that manages the on-demand rental facility; an administrator input means that is connected to the management server via a communication line and receives information input to the management server by an administrator of the on-demand rental facility; and a user input means that is connected to the management server via a communication line and receives information input to the management server by a user of the on-demand rental facility, wherein the management server comprises a management side reservation manager that stores and sets management side reservation information on the user and use date and time of the on-demand rental facility in a management information storage by receiving a reservation for the on-demand rental facility via the user input means; a reservation information annunciator that announces the management side reservation information stored in the management information storage by the management side reservation manager to the administrator of the on-demand rental facility; and a user group setter that causes the administrator of the on-demand rental facility to set, via the administrator input means, a group of users who are persons eligible for the reservation of the on-demand rental facility to be received via the user input means, and the group of users comprises: a first group of users; and a second group of users different from the first group of users; a goal information setter that stores and sets a target sales or occupancy rate threshold for a predetermined future period of the on-demand rental facility in the management information storage; a goal achievement determiner that determines whether the target sales or occupancy rate threshold can be achieved during the predetermined future period by (i) forecasting sales or occupancy rate for the predetermined future time period based on the management side reservation information and (ii) comparing the forecasted sales or occupancy rate with the target sales or occupancy rate threshold set by the goal information setter; and a user group switcher that causes the user group setter to switch the group of users based on a determination result of the goal achievement determiner, wherein the switching comprises enabling receipt of reservation requests via the user input means from only one of the first or second group of users during a specified period and disabling receipt of reservation requests from the other of the first or second group of users during the specified period.
The limitations of a management side reservation manager that stores and sets management side reservation information on the user and use date and time of the on-demand rental facility by receiving a reservation for the on-demand rental facility via the user input means, a reservation information annunciator that announces the management side reservation information to the administrator, and a user group setter that sets a group of users to groups that are eligible for the reservation, storing and setting a target sales/occupancy rate threshold for a future period of time, determining whether the target or threshold can be achieved by forecasting future sales or occupancy rate based on reservation information and comparing the forecasted sales or occupancy rate to the target or threshold, and switching groups of users that are enabled to request reservations and disabling others in response to the determination; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass the managing commercial interactions (business relations, sales activities), and activities that can be performed in the human mind. That is, other than reciting the use of generic computer elements (management server, administrator input means, user input means), the claims recite an abstract idea. In particular, storing and setting reservation information for a rental facility being reserved by a user; encompasses elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, memorization, evaluation). In addition, announcing a reservation to the manager, grouping users into groups; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment). In addition, setting a target sales or occupancy rate threshold as a goal, determining if the goal can be reached by comparing forecasted sales to the target, and switching people that can make a reservation and blocking others; encompass elements that can be performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, and judgement). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. In addition, storing and setting reservation information for a rental facility being reserved by a user; encompasses receiving a reservation from a user and storing its details in a ledger; which is the management of commercial activity (business relations, sales activities). In addition, announcing a reservation to the manager, grouping users into groups; encompasses system administrator informing parties of a reservation and grouping users into service tiers, which is the management of commercial activity (business relations, sales activities). In addition, setting a target sales or occupancy rate threshold as a goal, determining if the goal can be reached by forecasting sales to the target, comparing the forecasted to the goal, and switching people that can make a reservation and disabling others from making requests; encompasses a company setting goals for the number of reservations, determining if those goals can be met, and if not, allowing one group to make reservations and another not to, which is the management of commercial activity (business relations, sales activities). Thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in an ordered combination, that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the user of generic computer elements (management server, administrator input means, user input means) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-3 and 5-8 when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite that a different usage fee is charged based on the group of the user, which further recite the managing of sales activities and price setting; thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 2). In addition, the claims further recite a group of users are subscribers that pay for usage, which further recite the managing of sales activities and price setting; thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 3). Further, the claims recite calculating the expected occupancy rate based on a ratio of reserved time slots to available time slots; which is merely further reciting the abstract idea of forecasting occupancy rate during a period of time, and in this case, merely basing in on a ratio of reserved slots to available slots; which is the management of commercial activity and mental processes; thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 5). In addition, the claims recite the specified period of time refers to a future period of time, which merely narrows the field of use; and does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claim 6). In addition, the claims further recite performing the switching after the target is determined to be achievable, which further recites the abstract idea of managing commercial interactions and mental processes; thus, the claims recite elements that fall into the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas (claim 7). In addition, the claims recite doing this switching “automatically,” but this is merely invoking a computer as a tool carry out the abstract idea, which does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claim 7). In addition, the claims further recite conditions for enabling only the first group or second group of customers to submit requests, which merely narrows the field of use; and does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea itself (claim 8).
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are allowed over the prior art of record, however remain rejected under other statutes. In particular, the elements of, “a goal information setter that stores and sets a target sales or occupancy rate threshold for a predetermined future period of the on-demand rental facility in the management information storage; a goal achievement determiner that determines whether the target sales or occupancy rate threshold can be achieved during the predetermined future period by (i) forecasting a sales or occupancy rate for the predetermined future time period based on the management side reservation information and (ii) comparing the forecasted sales or occupancy rate with the target sales or occupancy rate threshold set by the goal information setter; and a user group switcher that causes the user group setter to switch the group of users based on a determination result of the goal achievement determiner, wherein the switching comprises enabling receipt of reservation requests via the user input means from only one of the first or second group of users during a specified period and disabling receipt of reservation requests from the other of the first or second group of users during the specified period,” is determined to be novel and non-obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)-272-4602. 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.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
17 September 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights