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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 02/26/26 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1-9 are pending.
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 1-9 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 system; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of reserving a workspace for rent. This represents a certain method of organizing human activities that is a fundamental economic practice.
For claim 1 the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
storing work pod information;
searching for available workspaces to rent,
send work pod information, comprising available workspaces to rent on a map displaying indicators of a location of the available workspaces to rent and an indicator of the location of the user computing device;
send additional information regarding the available workspaces to rent in response to a selection of the available workspaces to rent on the map, wherein the additional information comprises availability for renting and amenities and offered skills of a renter associated with the renter;
send a work pod request for rental of the workspace owned by the renter to the renter, comprising a selected date and duration of renting and skills of then renter requested;
receive and process the renter accepting the work pod request; and
automatically coordinate scheduling and reserve the requested workspace and the renter skills for the selected date and duration, in response to receiving the acceptance from the renter
The above limitations are reciting a process by which a user is able to search for available workspaces to rent, reserve the workspace, and to reserve “skills” of the renter. This represents a fundamental economic practice and/or a sales activity that is reserving and renting a workspace for a person to use, and any skills that the renter may have to offer. Renting of workspaces and offering skills for hire are both concepts that are economic in nature and are constitute a fundamental economic practice. The claimed invention is reciting a concept that is a fundamental economic practice, such as is found in the hospitality industry at hotels and conference rooms in hotels and/or convention centers and office spaces in buildings. Hotels and conference centers rent workspaces to users and provide services (such as a convention center or hotel). The same is known for office buildings, namely that they rent workspaces to individuals/entities. The claim is found to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities for these reasons. With respect to the claimed map that displays the location of workspaces in proximity to the user, this is just claiming the use of a map, where all maps display the relative proximity of various locations to one another. That is an inherent aspect to a map and what it represents and is considered to be part of the abstract idea of the claim. People can use paper maps to do what is claimed. As for the limitation reciting the location as being for the user computing device, the location of the user computing device can be the location of the home of a user and is still just reciting the relative locations of two different geographic positions on a map. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements of claim 1 are:
a server having a memory
a renter computing device coupled to the server;
a user computing device coupled to the server,
a booking interface for the user computing device
wherein the server is programmed to: receive and process a signal that the user computing device has accessed the system; and to receive and process a signal from the renter computing device regarding the acceptance of the rent request
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim amount to the use of computers connected via a network where the computers are just being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited user computing device and a renter computing device to communicate with a server to process the reservation request for a rental workspace and any offered skills. This is a mere instruction for one to use computers to implement the steps that define the abstract idea. The recitation to the booking interface is reciting an interface in a generic manner with no specificity to the interface itself. All computers have an interface that allows for a user to interact with the computer and to provide input. The claimed processing of signals is an instruction for one to use a computer as that is how computers work, they transmit signals to other computers that represents information. This is taken as a link to generic computer implementation for the abstract idea, which does not provide for integration into a practical application. The claimed additional elements in total, when viewed with the claim as a whole including the elements that define the abstract idea, does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) connected via a network, such as the Internet, and that is used to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using computer(s) connected via a network such as the Internet to perform the steps that define the abstract idea as was addressed above for the 2nd prong. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary. The totality of the additional elements amounts to a general link (apply it) to computer implementation for the abstract idea, and does not amount to reciting significantly more.
For claims 2-7, the applicant is reciting more than one user computing device, more than one renter computing device, the use of a mobile device for the user and/or the renter where the mobile device has a mobile application. These limitations are considered to be additional elements that are not part of the abstract idea; however, the mere recitation to a plurality of computers for the users or the renters and claiming the user of a mobile device (claimed in a generic and non-limiting manner) is just a further instruction for one to practice the abstract idea using generic computers connected to each other via a network. For the same reasons that are set forth for claim 1, the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For claims 8, 9, the applicant is reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was found for claim 1 by further defining the type of information that is being used by the system (photo of the workspace, location, if renter is on premises). The data/information being claimed is directed to non-functional descriptive material that is part of the abstract idea of the claim in terms of the descriptive information about the rental that is being provided to the user. Nothing additional is claimed for consideration at the 2nd prong or step 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (20190122316) in view of NPL document “How does Airbnb work for Hosts and Travelers”, in view of NPL document “Does anyone offer additional paid services?” (from AirBnB hosts forum from 2019), and further in view of Camhi et al.(20180053227).
For claims 1, 2, 3, 8, Xu teaches a system and method for renting spaces (properties) to users by the owners of the spaces (the hosts), and Xu describes the spaces as being a house, condo, a room, an apartment, a lot, or other real estate assets in paragraph 017. The claimed “workspace” has been interpreted as being a space (room, house, etc.) in a generic sense because the term “workspace” is a term that describing the intended use of the space and does not impart any structure or further step to the functionality claimed for the system. A rented room, house, or an apartment can be used by persons to conduct business (work), and thus satisfies the claimed “workspace”. Xu teaches a server 18 (paragraph 018), renter computing devices 25 (paragraph 012), and user computing devices 33 (paragraph 013), see figure 1. The user computing device includes a booking interface as claimed that allows a user to interact with the system and use the system to rent a workspace (any space). This can be interpreted as being the web browser that is disclosed as being used to present web pages to the user so that they can search for and reserve a space. Without an interface for the user to be able to use, they cannot reserve a space through use of computers as is taught by Xu. The sever stores information regarding the spaces for rent, which satisfies the claimed “work pod information”, see paragraph 017. The work pod information is information that represents available spaces for rent and is satisfied by the listing information that is used in XU and that describes the spaces available for rent (photographs, attribute information about properties and rooms, amenities, location, layout, prices, lengths of stay permitted, availability, minimum age, etc.), see paragraph 017. The receipt of a signal for accessing the system and searching for spaces is disclosed in paragraph 020. A user is disclosed as accessing the system to search for properties that satisfy given search criteria (dates of stay, etc.). Paragraph 021 discloses that the results of the search are sent for display to the user computing device and that that results describes the spaces available for rent. Xu further teaches that a request is received from a user for a rental space, see paragraph 027. The user is disclosed as sending a request to make a reservation and the booking system of Xu responds by coordinating schedule and making a reservation. With respect to the rental request including the date and duration, Xu recognizes that length of stay is information that is associated with a rental, see paragraph 017. Also see paragraph 027 where the “dates for the stay” is disclosed as being part of the rental request. This is considered to satisfy what is claimed.
Not disclosed by Xu is that a request for the rental is sent to the renter that owns the workspace so that they can respond with an acceptance of the rental request that results in a reservation being made for the workspace (room, house, etc.).
Not disclosed is that a map is displayed that shows the locations of the workspace (rental locations) and the user computing device location.
Not disclosed is that the skills of the renter can be offered and reserved by the user.
With respect to a request for the rental is sent to the renter that owns the workspace so that they can respond with an acceptance of the rental request that results in a reservation being made for the workspace, NPL article “How does Airbnb work for Hosts and Travelers” discloses the process that Airbnb uses to provide rental spaces to users who desire to rent a space. This is directly analogous to Xu that teaches the same overall system. Disclosed is that Airbnb allows homeowners to rent out their homes to renters, including renting of rooms, see page 1. Disclosed is that property owners upload listing information for spaces for rent (Xu does the same). Disclosed is that a user can search for properties and request a rental reservation (Xu does the same). Page 3 teaches that guest approval is up to the host, and that when a rental request is received the owner can deal directly with the guest. On page 4 it is disclosed that Airbnb has two options to make a reservation. The first option is an automatic booking reservation process that allows for instant booking of a space. Also disclosed is a second option where a host can choose to be informed of a rental request so they can decide if they want to approve the request or not. This teaches sending a request to the renter for acceptance of the request (to approve or disapprove) and that when accepted by the renter, a reservation will be processed/generated. What is claimed reads on a host not electing to participate in an automatic booking process and electing to receive a message informing them of a rental request so they can approve or deny the request. This is a well-known aspect of Airbnb.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Xu with the ability to allow a host (the renter) to receive a message about a rental request from a user so that the renter can decide if they want to accept or deny the rental request. This NPL article is disclosing the well-known feature of Airbnb which is that a host can approve or deny a renter that is requesting to rent a room or a house, etc.. Providing this feature to Xu yields predictable results of allowing the renter (property owner) to be the one to approve or deny the rental.
With respect to the offering and reserving of the skills of the renter, The NPL article “Does anyone offer additional paid services? from AirBnB hosts forum discloses that it was known in the art for hosts (renters) that are renting spaces, to offer additional services/skills for booking by the guest (the claimed user renting the space). In January of 2019 Phillippal asked about AirBnb hosts offering paid services to renters, such as babysitting, airport transfers, home cooked food, and maid services. Another poster KKC responded by suggesting dog boarding as a service that can be provided by a host (the renter). Hels/ on the 3 page of the NPL document discusses how as a host they provide airport pickup for a fee and will provide a Thai cooking class. The NPL article is teaching to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is desirable and potentially profitable to offer your services/skills as a host (the renter), such as offering services of babysitting or cooking or maid services or even car transportation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Xu with the further ability to allow the renters of spaces (hosts) to offer their skills for booking through the booking interface such as by offering babysitting or cooking services or maid services or transportation services, so that convenience can be provided to the guest (user renting the space) and so that the hosts (the renter renting out a space) can earn extra income. This yields predictable results of offering extra services/skills to the user who is renting the space, allowing the user to book the skills, and providing additional income to the renter/host. Providing this feature to the system of Xu is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and is doing what was known to have been done for AirBnb rentals back in 2019, more than a year before the earliest effective filing date for the claimed invention (03/27/2020).
With respect to the display of the map that shows the workspaces (rental properties) proximity to the user computing device location, Camhi teaches that it is known in the art of searching for rental properties to display rental properties on a map while identifying the location of the user on the map so the user can ascertain their proximity to the rental properties, see Figure 20E. Paragraph 046 teaches the invention allows users to search for rental properties so they can be displayed. Paragraph 059 teaches the display of a map to the user that identifies locations of rental properties in the proximity to the user location that is also shown in the map. This is shown in figure 20E, to which the applicant is referred. Camhi also teaches that the workspaces (properties) can be on the map with pins where the pings (indicators) can be selected to show more information about a given property. This satisfies the sending for display of the additional information in response to selection of an indicator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Xu with the further ability to display the listing of properties via a map with selectable indicates, where the maps shows the location of the user (and their computing device), so that the user can ascertain their proximity to various rental properties, as is taught by Camhi. This is just providing Xu with the ability to show the locations of the properties on a map as is well known in the art of rental properties. Having a user location be shown on the map (not technically claimed but is what is disclosed in the specification and is shown in figure 2A of the originally filed specification) in relation to the location of rental properties is known in the art and would yield predictable results when added to Xu, namely that a user can use the map to easily see relative proximities to rental property locations. This also provides the user with the ability to select a given workspace on the map to obtain the claimed additional information about the workspace.
For claims 4, 5, 6, 7, Xu teaches that the renter device and the user device can both be a laptop or a smartphone, both of which satisfy a mobile device. See paragraphs 012 and 013. With respect to the claimed “mobile application” that is recited as being part of the mobile device, the examiner notes that the applicant has not recite what the mobile application does or what function it is associated with. All computing devices such as laptops and smartphones have an operating system, which satisfies the claimed “mobile application”. An operating system is an application (software) that is part of the mobile device and this satisfies what has been claimed.
For claims 9, the applicant is reciting what the work pod information comprises. This is directed at non-functional descriptive material that is merely descriptive of the space or property that is being listed for rent. In other words, the work pod information that specifies if the renter is on premises is just the information that is part of the space/property listing that is being sent to the user who is searching for properties. This language is not functional in nature because it claims information that only has meaning to the human that is reading it, and is just information that is being sent for display. This represents non-functional descriptive material that is satisfied by any of the listing information in Xu that is being provided to the user. The claimed booking of the renter via the interface has already been addressed and is part of claim 1 for the element reciting that the skills of the renter are booked via the booking interface. This satisfies what has been claimed.
Response to arguments
The 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claim 1 that was based on an amendment introducing new matter into the claim has been overcome by the deletion of the alleged new matter from the scope of claim 1. The 112a rejection has been withdrawn. The claims have been amended such that they are substantially the same as the claims that were filed on 01/06/25.
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On page 5 of the reply the applicant argues that the claims recites a technical implementation for coordinating workspace rentals using networked computing devices. The applicant argues that this is not an abstract business concept. Applicant argues that the claims use specific networked architecture where multiple computing devices are connected to a server to allow for rental transactions to occur. This is not persuasive. The limitation reciting the server, a renter computer, and an owner computer is claiming the use of computers connected by a network such as the Internet. The claims are reciting generic computer technology that does not amount to claiming a specific computer architecture. The claims are reciting a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea that is the business concept of renting and reserving workspaces, where the abstract idea is simply being implemented by use of networked computers. This does not equate to eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues on pages 5-6 of the reply that that the server is configured to send work pod information for display on a map. The applicant argues that this is not just displaying information on a map but is a technical implementation where the server processes local data and generates a map showing workspace locations and user locations. This is not persuasive and is arguing that because the claims recite the use of computers the claims are eligible. The sending for display and the use of a map to show locations of workspaces is part of the abstract idea. It is not persuasive to argue that the claims are not just reciting the use of a map because they recite generation of a map showing locations of a workspace and a user computer. This is more or less arguing that the claims do more than generate a map because they generate a map. This is not persuasive. The use of a server to perform step(s) that are part of the abstract idea does not confer eligibility to the claim because it is an instruction for one to use a computer as a tool to execute the steps that defines the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The applicant argues on pages 6 of the reply that the claims also send for display additional information regarding available workspaces and argues that this is a technical process. This is not persuasive and is arguing that the claims are eligible because they use computers to send information about workspaces to rent so a person can view the information. This is not persuasive. This is simply using a computer as a tool to execute the step that is part of the abstract idea (the sending and display of the claimed information) and does not render the claims eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The applicant argues on page 6 of the reply that the claims recite a technical communication protocol where a server transmits a request to a user and renter computer device. This is not persuasive. The claims do not recite anything that would reasonably be considered as a technical communication protocol. The claims are reciting that a computer sends a request to other computers. This is not claiming a specific communication protocol other than communication by a computer in a broad and non-limiting manner. The use of a server to perform step(s) that are part of the abstract idea does not confer eligibility to the claim because it is an instruction for one to use a computer as a tool to execute the steps that defines the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
On page 6 of the reply the applicant argues that the claims recite that a signal from the renter is processed (acceptance by the renter) and the space is automatically reserved. This is what defines the abstract idea and is not claiming a technical process that would render the claims eligible. The claims do nothing more than to use computers connected by a network (Internet for example) so that the renting of workspaces can be facilitated where information is exchanged and reservations for workspaces are processed, etc.. This is performing an abstract idea by using a computer as a tool, and does not render the claims eligible. This does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
On page 6 of the reply the applicant argues that the claims are integrating the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims provide a concrete solution for coordinating workspace rentals across networked computers, where the server acts as a coordinator that processes the information and performs the steps that defines the abstract idea. This argument is making the point for the examiner, namely that the invention is using networked computers as a tool to execute the abstract idea of processing requests and reservations for rentable workspaces. This is performing an abstract idea by using a computer as a tool, and does not render the claims eligible. This does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
On pages 6-7 of the reply the applicant argues that the claims recite technical operations performed by a server and argues that the claimed steps cannot be performed by people with no technology at all. This is not persuasive. For the steps that define the abstract idea, people can perform the recited steps. The computer is not part of the abstract idea so the argument that people cannot do what the server is claimed as doing is not persuasive. The server is being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea and this does not amount to more than an link to the use of computers for the act of renting workspaces. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for the authority for this position.
On page 7 of the reply the applicant argues the interface is not generic. The interface claimed is generic and is not structurally defined by a recitation to the data that is can display. The interface is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea and does not amount to integration or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The allegation on page 7 that the claimed invention is improving the functioning of a computer system is not persuasive. The result of the claim does not have anything to do with improving the functioning or operation of a computer or any technology recited in the claims. To argue that the claims improve technology has no merit. The result of the claim is a user being able to reserve a workspace for rent with offered skills, etc.. This does not improve technology in any manner.
The arguments are not persuasive and the 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained.
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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626