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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 14, and 19 are amended. Claims 13 and 18 are canceled. Claims 1-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible under 101 because generating a suggestion on a user interface and updating reservation schedule data cannot be performed in the human mind. Examiner disagrees. The generation of the collaborator-based and location-based suggestion based on the analyzed and observed work location information for the collaborator and historical locations corresponding to the user directly corresponds to the observation and evaluation of data, and making a judgment or opinion (the suggestion and updated schedule) based on the observed and evaluated data. The observation, evaluation, judgments, and option steps directly correspond to mental processes and may absolutely be performed in the human mind. The fact the process is being performed via computer does not take the claims out of the mental processes abstract idea grouping. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process (MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The applicant’s claims describe a generic computer performing the limitations that correspond to the judicial exception (mental processes) and the claims recite an abstract idea. Further, the claims also still correspond to the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity as well, as indicated in the Final Office Action dated 10/24/2025.
Applicant further argues that the system reduces network traffic and data accesses performed by the reservation system. This argument is not sufficient to indicate an improvement in computers or technology. This apparent argument in computing overhead (e.g., CPU usage, memory usage, data storage) is unpersuasive. Computing overhead is merely a combination of excess computation time, usage, or memory required to perform the specific task, which further indicates that the alleged improvement is an improvement in the business process (being performed via computer) rather than an improvement in the actual computer itself. Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also MPEP 2106.05(f). Examiner also notes that the alleged improvement is stated in a conclusory manner without providing 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 (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 12, filed 01/23/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-12, 19, and 20 recite a method (i.e. process), and claims 14-17 recite system (i.e. machine). Therefore claims 1-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations of identifying a collaborator corresponding to a user; accessing work location information for the collaborator, the work location information being indicative of a work location where the collaborator is scheduled to work; accessing historical reservation data corresponding to the user to identify historical locations and historical collaborators corresponding to the user; prior to generating a collaborator-based suggestion, re-ranking the ranked list of collaborator-based suggestions based on the identified historical collaborators generating the collaborator-based suggestion indicative of a first suggested work location based on the work location of the collaborator and the ranked list of location-based work locations; identifying a user location; prior to generating a location-based suggestion, re-ranking the ranked list of location- based suggestions based on the identified historical locations; generating the location-based suggestion indicative of a second suggested work location based on the user location and the ranked list of location-based work locations; generating, on a user interface, a suggestion output including a first suggestion element indicative of the collaborator-based suggestion and a second suggestion element indicative of the location-based suggestion; and updating reservation schedule data to allocate a desk in a desk pool in response to receipt of a user interaction selecting the suggestion output. The claim limitations are drawn towards identifying work locations where collaborators may be able to work near each other, and directly corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal relationships and interactions, business relations), as identified by limitations detailing identifying collaborator corresponding to a user, accessing work location for the collaborator, and generating location-based recommendations. The claim recites limitations that also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing accessing work location information for the collaborator, the work location information being indicative of a work location where the collaborator is scheduled to work, and generating a collaborator-based suggestion indicative of a first suggested work location based on the work location of the collaborator; generating a location-based suggestion indicative of a second suggested work location based on the user location. The claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: a user interface. The additional element is a computer component recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional element is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements 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 amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claim above. Thus, claims 2-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 14 recites the limitations of: identify a collaborator corresponding to a user, access desk pool reservation information for the collaborator indicative of a desk pool where the collaborator has reserved a desk, and generate a collaborator-based suggestion indicative of a first suggested desk pool based on the desk pool where the collaborator has reserved the desk; identify a user location, access the desk pool information to identify a location of a second desk pool based on the user location and generate a location-based suggestion indicative of the second desk pool; access historical reservation data corresponding to the user to identify historical desk pools where the user reserved a desk and historical collaborators with whom the user reserved a desk pool; re-rank a ranked list of collaborator-based desk pools based on the identified historical collaborators and to re-rank a ranked list of location-based desk pools based on the identified historical locations; generate a suggestion output including a first suggestion element indicative of the collaborator-based suggestion and a second suggestion element indicative of the location-based suggestion, wherein the first suggestion element is selected based on the ranked list of collaborator-based desk pools and the second suggestion element is selected based on the ranked list of location-based desk pools; access a [desk reservation system] based on user interaction with [the user interface] and update reservation schedule data to allocate a desk in a desk pool in response to a selection from the suggestion output. The claim limitations are drawn towards identifying work locations where collaborators may be able to work near each other, and directly corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal relationships and interactions, business relations), as identified by limitations detailing identifying a collaborator corresponding to a user, accessing desk pool reservation information for the collaborator indicative of a desk pool where the collaborator has reserved a desk, and generate a collaborator-based suggestion indicative of a first suggested desk pool based on the desk pool where the collaborator has reserved the desk; identify a user location, access the desk pool information to identify a location of a second desk pool based on the user location and generate a location-based suggestion indicative of the second desk pool; and generating a suggestion output including a first suggestion element indicative of the collaborator-based suggestion and a second suggestion element indicative of the location-based suggestion. The claim recites limitations that also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing identifying a collaborator corresponding to a user, access desk pool reservation information for the collaborator indicative of a desk pool where the collaborator has reserved a desk, and generate a collaborator-based suggestion indicative of a first suggested desk pool based on the desk pool where the collaborator has reserved the desk; accessing the desk pool information to identify a location of a second desk pool based on the user location and generate a location-based suggestion indicative of the second desk pool; generating a suggestion output including a first suggestion element indicative of the collaborator-based suggestion and a second suggestion element indicative of the location-based suggestion; and accessing a desk reservation system based on user interaction with the suggestion output. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Note: features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: at least one processor implementing: a collaborator-based suggestion system, a location-based suggestion system, output generator, and user interaction processor; a history accessing system, a suggestion merging and ranking system, a user interface, and a desk reservation system. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 15 recites the limitations of identifying a plurality of collaborators of the user; and a desk pool reservation identifier configured to access the desk pool reservation information for each of the plurality of collaborators to identify a desk pool where each of the plurality of collaborators has reserved a desk. The limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of a collaboration identification processor (configured to identify a plurality of collaborators of the user) which amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 16 recites the limitations that the desk pool reservation identifier is configured to identify a first number of collaborators, of the plurality of collaborators, that share a first common desk pool and to identify a second number of collaborators, of the plurality of collaborators, that share a second common desk pool, and wherein the collaborator-based suggestion system comprises: [a desk pool sorting system] configured to rank the first and second desk pools based on the first number of collaborators and the second number of collaborators to obtain a ranked list of collaborator-based desk pools; and a [collaborator-based suggestion generator] configured to generate the collaborator-based suggestion based on the ranked list of collaborator-based desk pools. The claim limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of a desk pool sorting system and a collaborator-based suggestion generator. The additional elements amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 17 recites the limitations of a location-based desk pool identifier configured to identify a first available desk pool, and a first level of availability corresponding to the first available desk pool, based on the user location and to identify a second available desk pool, and a second level of availability corresponding to the second available desk pool, based on the user location; an [availability-based sorting system] configured to rank the first available desk pool and the second available desk pool based on the first level of availability and the second level of availability to obtain a ranked list of location-based desk pools; and a [location-based suggestion generator] configured to generate the location-based suggestion based on the ranked list of location-based desk pools. The claim limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of an availability-based sorting system and a location-based suggestion generator. The additional elements amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 19 recites the limitations of identifying a first user related to a second user; accessing a work resource identifier for the first user, the work resource identifier identifying a first work resource reserved by the first user; accessing historical reservation data corresponding to the user to identify historical locations and historical collaborators corresponding to the user; re-rank a ranked list of collaborator-based desk pools based on the identified historical collaborators and to re-rank a ranked list of location-based desk pools based on the identified historical locations; generating a user-based suggestion based on the work resource identifier; identifying a user location corresponding to the second user and a resource corresponding to a second work resource; generating a resource location-based suggestion indicative of a second work resource based on the user location and the resource location; generating a suggestion output including a first suggestion element indicative of the user-based suggestion and a second suggestion element indicative of the resource location-based suggestion, wherein the first suggestion element and the second suggestion element is selected based on the ranked list of collaborator-based desk pools and the ranked list of location-based desk pools; and updating reservation schedule data to allocate a desk in a desk pool in response to receipt of a user interaction selecting the suggestion output. The claim limitations are drawn towards identifying work locations where collaborators may be able to work near each other, and directly corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal relationships and interactions, business relations), as identified by limitations detailing identifying a first user related to a second user; accessing a work resource identifier for the first user, the work resource identifier identifying a first work resource reserved by the first user; generating a user-based suggestion based on the work resource identifier; identifying a user location corresponding to the second user and a resource location corresponding to a second work resource; generating a resource location-based suggestion indicative of a second work resource based on the user location and the resource location. The claim also recites limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing identifying a first user related to a second user; accessing a work resource identifier for the first user, the work resource identifier identifying a first work resource reserved by the first user; generating a user-based suggestion based on the work resource identifier; identifying a user location corresponding to the second user and a resource location corresponding to a second work resource; generating a resource location-based suggestion indicative of a second work resource based on the user location and the resource location; and generating a suggestion output including a first suggestion element indicative of the user- based suggestion and a second suggestion element indicative of the resource location-based suggestion. The claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: a user interface and suggestion merging and ranking system. The additional elements are computer component recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional element is no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 20 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claim above. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Vashisht (2022/0053036) which discloses optimizing dynamic open space environments by processors executing instructions including performing operations including receiving a reservation request for a workspace through a user device associated with a user; deriving dynamic user information comprising collaboration data derived from a collaboration service, the collaboration data based on a collaboration history of the user; analyzing the user information to determine one or more workspace suggestions for the user; transmitting the one or more workspace suggestions to the user device; receiving, through the user device, a workspace selection from the one or more workspace suggestions; and updating a reservation of the user in accordance with the workspace selection. The reference does not explicitly disclose the amended limitations: prior to generating a collaborator-based suggestion, re-ranking the ranked list of collaborator-based suggestions based on the identified historical collaborators generating the collaborator-based suggestion indicative of a first suggested work location based on the work location of the collaborator and the ranked list of location-basedwork locations; identifying a user location; prior to generating a location-based suggestion, re-ranking the ranked list of location- based suggestions based on the identified historical locations generating the location-based suggestion indicative of a second suggested work location based on the user location and the ranked list of location-based work locations. The claims overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “System and Method for Group Optimal Common Meeting Place Recommender using Individualized Spatio-Temporal Presence Information” (IP.com, 2012) which discloses a solution for identifying common meeting point for a group of users who have temporal and spatial locality constraints that vary over time by finding a solution that uses daily movement information obtained from GPS traces for each user to compute stay points during various times of the day. We then determine interesting locations by analyzing the stay points across multiple users. The reference does not explicitly disclose the amended limitations: prior to generating a collaborator-based suggestion, re-ranking the ranked list of collaborator-based suggestions based on the identified historical collaborators generating the collaborator-based suggestion indicative of a first suggested work location based on the work location of the collaborator and the ranked list of location-based work locations; identifying a user location; prior to generating a location-based suggestion, re-ranking the ranked list of location- based suggestions based on the identified historical locations generating the location-based suggestion indicative of a second suggested work location based on the user location and the ranked list of location-based work locations. The claims overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628