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 FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 17 October 2025.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-3 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 October 2025 with regards to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on page 4 of their response, “This interplay of components produces a technical effect on the operation of the computing system. Specifically, the ordered combination of elements reduces manual synchronization errors, eliminates redundant data transmissions from ineligible users, and maintains system consistency without human intervention. The claimed configuration thus improves the functioning of the networked reservation infrastructure itself, rather than merely implementing an abstract decision-making process. By enabling forecast-driven, server- controlled access management, the present claims integrate any underlying economic concept into a practical application that enhances computer performance and reliability, satisfying Step 2A Prong Two.” 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 interplay of components produces a technical effect on the operation of the computing system, the Examiner is not persuaded that this is sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, the Applicant’s argument refers to the Applicant’s previous statement that the claims employ, “a management server that dynamically switches network access privileges between distinct user groups in real time based on forecasted data. This operation is executed through coordinated modules that together modify data structures and control flows within the server itself. The server analyzes reservation data stored in the management information storage and alters which user terminals are permitted to transmit reservation requests, improving the responsiveness, data integrity, and network efficiency of the reservation environment.” With regards to this statement, first, at no point in the claims has the Applicant referred to network access privileges, forecasted data, coordinated modules, data structures, control flows, data integrity, or network efficiency. As such, any of these statements would be beyond the scope of the claim, and thus would not be relevant to determining if the claims recite elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, it is noted that analyzing reservation data stored in the management information storage and altering which user terminals are permitted to transmit reservation requests, would merely encompass managing commercial activity, as this would be merely be setting restrictions on who can request a reservation/service; and thus, would recite an abstract idea. As such, this would not improve another technology or technical field. It is also noted that a “reservation environment” is not a technology or technical field, but instead a field of commerce, and thus, any improvements in the abstract idea would be insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that the ordered combination of elements reduces manual synchronization errors, eliminates redundant data transmissions from ineligible users, and maintains system consistency without human intervention; the Examiner is not persuaded. In this case, it is noted that the Applicant has failed to provide any evidence in their arguments or specification, with regards to reducing synchronization errors, eliminating redundant data transmissions, or maintaining system consistency without human intervention. It is noted 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). As shown here, the specification must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement, and if it 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), or does not at all, then the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. In this case, the Applicant’s specification does not set forth and describe any technological improvement, and their arguments merely include a bare assertion of improvement. As such, the Examiner is not persuaded that the Applicant’s claims are integrated into a practical application. It is additionally noted that with regards to this argument, the Applicant has failed to identify the specific elements of their claim that they view as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application, by improving the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field; instead, the Applicant has merely alleged such an improvement is achieved by the claims, which is not persuasive. Third, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that, “by enabling forecast-driven, server-controlled access management, the present claims integrate any underlying economic concept into a practical application that enhances computer performance and reliability,” the Examiner is not persuaded. The Examiner notes, as addressed above, the Applicant’s assertion that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by enhancing computer performance and reliability, is not persuasive, as the Applicant has failed to provide evidence in their specification or arguments of such an improvement. Additionally, as noted above, the Applicant has failed to identify the specific additional claim elements, that when taken individually or in an ordered combination with the recited abstract idea, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, specifically, that enhances computer performance and reliability (as argued). Instead, the Applicant has made a conclusory argument of performance and reliability enhancements, which is not persuasive. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 with regards to switching groups that can make a rental based on failing to meet a sales or occupancy goal have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 § 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.
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 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 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 based on a comparison of (i) a current sales or occupancy rate stored as management side reservation information and (ii) 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.
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, determining whether the target or threshold can be achieved based on comparing the current sales with the target sales, and switching available users in response to the comparison; 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 current sales to the target, and switching people that can make a reservation; 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 comparing current sales to the target, and switching people that can make a reservation; encompasses a company setting goals for the number of reservation to a certain group of people, determining if those goals can be met, and if not, converting the offers to another group of people, 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, 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivadelli et al. (US 2014/0278594 A1) (hereinafter Vivadelli), in view of Denker et al. (US 2012/0078667 A1) (hereinafter Denker).
With respect to claim 1, Vivadelli teaches:
A management server that manages the on-demand rental facility (See at least paragraphs 14-16, 96-102, and 112 which describe a management server which manages office space rental).
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 (See at least paragraphs 96, 98, 99, 120, 130, 132, 133, 141, 147, 162 and 183-186 which describe a resource managers being able to access the server and provide parameters of inventory and manage reservations).
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 (See at least paragraphs 98, 105-108, 111, 113, 116, and 119 which describe users accessing the system to request a reservation for office space, and manage their reservations).
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 (See at least paragraphs 14-17, 21, 96-98, 112, and 120 which describe collecting reservation request and bookings from users, wherein the reservations include date and times of the specific reservations).
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 (See at least paragraphs 14-17, 21, 96-98, 112, and 120 which describe a user booking a reservation, and alerting relevant parties to the reservation).
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 (See at least paragraphs 15, 96, 98, 119, 130, 133, 134, 135, and 183-188 which describe setting users to different groups and roles, wherein the groups and roles have different privileges and importance when booking).
Vivadelli discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Vivadelli does not explicitly disclose the following, however Denker teaches:
A goal information setter that stores and sets a target sales or occupancy rate threshold for 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 based on a comparison of (i) a current sales or occupancy rate stored as management side reservation information and (ii) 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 (See at least paragraphs 128, 129, 134, 157-169, 181-186, and 212-225 which describe an administrator setting target sales for a special “hold” group of users, wherein the system compares the current sales to the goal in order to determine if the target can be reached, and if not, then releasing “held” reservations to the general public in order to meet the target sales).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of allowing users to book rooms with a facility, wherein the users are given different roles and levels, wherein the facility manager is able to set parameters and goals for their facility, and wherein an administrator tracks reservations and actual usage of Vivadelli, with the system and method of an administrator setting target sales for a special “hold” group of users, wherein the system compares the current sales to the goal in order to determine if the target can be reached, and if not, then releasing “held” reservations to the general public in order to meet the target sales of Denker. By using a goal of target sales/occupancy rate of a rental property, and releasing special reservations to the general public when the target goal might or can’t be met, an administrator will predictably be able to increase sales and reservations, thus satisfying commercial goals and generating higher/desired revenues.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vivadelli and Denker as applied to claim 1 as stated above, and further in view of Scheidegger et al. (US 2022/0309465 A1) (hereinafter Scheidegger).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Vivadelli and Denker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Vivadelli and Denker do not explicitly disclose the following, however Scheidegger teaches:
Wherein a usage fee of the on-demand rental facility for the first group of users and a usage fee of the on- demand rental facility for the second group of users are different from each other (See at least paragraphs 11-15, 39, 74, and 75 which describe subscribers and non-subscribers using a booking service to reserve a room for a period of time, wherein the users pay different rates based on their subscription status and level, and wherein subscribers are given access to reservations nonsubscribers are not given).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of allowing users to book rooms with a facility, wherein the users are given different roles and levels, wherein the facility manager is able to set parameters and goals for their facility, and wherein an administrator tracks reservations and actual usage of Vivadelli, with the system and method of an administrator setting target sales for a special “hold” group of users, wherein the system compares the current sales to the goal in order to determine if the target can be reached, and if not, then releasing “held” reservations to the general public in order to meet the target sales of Denker, with the system and method of subscribers and non-subscribers using a booking service to reserve a room for a period of time, wherein the users pay different rates based on their subscription status and level, and wherein subscribers are given access to reservations nonsubscribers are not given of Scheidegger. By charging different groups of users different pricing, a booking service would predictably be able to encourage users to subscribe to a service, thus providing long term revenue, and would predictably be able to generate higher revenue from on-demand reservations.
With respect to claim 3, Vivadelli/Denker discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Vivadelli and Denker do not explicitly disclose the following, however Scheidegger teaches:
Wherein one of the first group of users and the second group of users is a group of subscription users who pay a fee as consideration for usage right for a certain period (See at least paragraphs 11-15, 39, 74, and 75 which describe subscribers and non-subscribers using a booking service to reserve a room for a period of time, wherein the users pay different rates based on their subscription status and level, and wherein subscribers are given access to reservations nonsubscribers are not given).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to combine the system and method of allowing users to book rooms with a facility, wherein the users are given different roles and levels, wherein the facility manager is able to set parameters and goals for their facility, and wherein an administrator tracks reservations and actual usage of Vivadelli, with the system and method of an administrator setting target sales for a special “hold” group of users, wherein the system compares the current sales to the goal in order to determine if the target can be reached, and if not, then releasing “held” reservations to the general public in order to meet the target sales of Denker, with the system and method of subscribers and non-subscribers using a booking service to reserve a room for a period of time, wherein the users pay different rates based on their subscription status and level, and wherein subscribers are given access to reservations nonsubscribers are not given of Scheidegger. By charging different groups of users different pricing, a booking service would predictably be able to encourage users to subscribe to a service, thus providing long term revenue, and would predictably be able to generate higher revenue from on-demand reservations.
Conclusion
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 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 on (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
15 January 2026
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628