ETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 7 were previously pending and subject to a final office action mailed 08/15/2025. Claims 1 – 2 & 5 were amended and claims 8 – 10 were added in a reply filed 02/17/2026. Claims 1 – 10 are currently pending and subject to the non-final office action below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 after final rejection on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as outlined below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
• “user input means that receives information input by a user of the on-demand rental facility” in claim 1, as well as subsequent recitations of user input means and corresponding functions in claims 2 & 4.
• “device operation unit for allowing the user to operate the device via the user input means” in claim 1, as well as subsequent recitations of device operation unit and corresponding functions in claims 2 – 7.
• “reservation receiving unit for storing reservation information on the user and reservation date and time” in claim 1.
• “authorization unit for authorizing the user of the on-demand rental facility to operate the device at the reservation date and time via the device operation unit” in claim 1, as well as subsequent recitations of authorization unit and corresponding functions in claims 2 – 5.
• “display control unit that causes the display means to switch and display predetermined information” in claim 2.
• “unlocking key issuing unit that issues an unlocking key” in claim 3.
• “identification information issuing unit that issues predetermined identification information” in claim 4.
• “operation management unit that associates the user of the on-demand rental facility with the device operation unit to make user information” in claim 6.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation for “user input means”:
[0030] As illustrated in Fig. 1, an on-demand rental facility management system 1 includes a building 2 having a plurality of rooms 20 (rental spaces) as an on-demand rental facility, a management server 3 for managing the building 2, and a terminal device 4 such as a mobile phone, a smart phone, or a personal computer owned by a user wishing to use the building 2. The terminal device 4 functions as user input means…
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation for “device operation unit,” “reservation receiving unit,” “authorization unit,” “display control unit,” “unlocking key issuing unit,” “identification information issuing unit,” “operation management unit”:
[0040] The management server 3 includes control means 31, and the control means 31 includes a central processing unit (CPU), memory, and the like, and executes information processing according to a predetermined program stored in the memory. The control means 31 includes a device operation unit 311, a reservation receiving unit 312, an authorization unit 313, a display control unit 314, an unlocking key issuing unit 315, a lock setting unit 316, an identification information issuing unit 317, an operation management unit 318, and a storage unit 32.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 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.
Claims 1 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Terashima et al. (US 20190213819 A1).
As per claim 1, Terashima an on-demand rental facility management system comprising:
• an on-demand rental facility (para. 49, “a facility which can be currently reserved”; Also see paras. 51 & 61, noting “the reservation target facility”);
• and a management server that manages the on-demand rental facility and is connected via a communication line to both user input means that receives information input by a user of the on- demand rental facility and a device provided in the on-demand rental facility (Fig. 1 & para. 31, “management device 100” (i.e., server) connected to “user terminal 30” (i.e., user input means) and “network appliance 10” (i.e., device provided in the on-demand rental facility); As per para. 66, “network appliance 10” can be a “smart lock 11, camera 12, light 13, and smart plug 14.”; As per paras. 37 – 42, “management device 100” manages the on-demand rental facility.);
• wherein the management server comprises: a device operation unit for allowing the user to operate the device via the user input means (See paras. 37, 51 – 57, noting that “usability determiner 104 of management device 100” allows the user to control the device using a URL control page on “user terminal 30.”);
• a reservation receiving unit for storing reservation information on the user and reservation date and time of the on-demand rental facility in a storage unit by receiving a reservation for the on-demand rental facility via the user input means (See paras. 47 & 49 – 50, noting receiving “Input of user information which is used for performing user registration, such as an email address, a user name and a password, is received on the user registration screen” as well as “a reservation request including a reservation target facility and reservation time information” from the user device at “management device 100” via “operator system 20” and subsequently “causes the generated reservation information to be stored in reservation database 102.”);
• and an authorization unit configured to: (i) verify that the reservation information stored in the storage unit corresponds to the user and a current date and time: and (ii) determine, based on the verification, whether the user is authorized to operate the device at the reservation date and time via the device operation unit on the basis of the reservation information stored in the storage unit (See para. 53, noting that “usability determiner 104 determines usability based on whether a current time is included in the reservation time in the reservation information associated with the URL” and as per para. 54, a “determination result regarding usability” is generated “based on whether a current time is included in the reservation time in the reservation information associated with the URL” sent to the particular registered user. As per 47 & 49 – 50, the registration information is linked to the identity of a particular user.);
• wherein, when the authorization unit determines that the user is authorized, the device operation unit controls the device at the reservation date and time on the basis of operation information for operating the device, that is input via the user input means, and the reservation information stored in the storage unit (See paras. 51 – 57, noting that “When it is determined that use is allowed, usability determiner 104 inputs an unlock instruction to appliance controller 105, and appliance controller 105 instructs smart lock 11 to unlock (step S117). Smart lock 11 performs an unlock process under the control of management device 100.” In other words, the user is authorized to operate the reserved facility device (e.g., lock, camera, light, etc. as per para. 66) via the displayed URL on the user device when the current time matches the reserved period in the stored reservation information for the user.).
As per claim 8, Terashima discloses the limitations of claim 1. Terashima further discloses:
• wherein the authorization unit authorizes the user only when the verification confirms that the current date and time falls within a reservation time window stored in the storage unit and denies operation of the device outside the reservation time window (See paras. 51 – 57, noting that “usability determiner 104 determines usability based on whether a current time is included in the reservation time in the reservation information.” In other words, usability determiner 104 does not allow the user to control facility devices when a current time is outside the reservation time window.).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terashima et al. (US 20190213819 A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20210256481 A1).
As per claim 2, Terashima discloses the limitations of claim 1. Regarding the following limitations,
• wherein: the on-demand rental facility comprises display means that is provided in the on-demand rental facility and displays information; the management server comprises a display control unit that causes the display means to switch and display predetermined information for each reservation for the on-demand rental facility; and when the user input means is caused to read the predetermined information displayed on the display means, the authorization unit verifies that the reservation information stored in the storage unit corresponds to the user and a current date and time, and authorizes the user of the on-demand rental facility to operate the device at the reservation date and time via the device operation unit based on the verification,
Terashima discloses wherein an authorization of the user of the on-demand rental facility to operate the device at the reservation date and time via the device operation unit comprises verifying that the reservation information stored in the storage unit corresponds to the user and a current date and time as outlined above and in at least paras. 47 & 49 – 57. To the extent to which Terashima does not disclose wherein user authentication is triggered by scanning a displayed code at the reserved facility, Suzuki teaches this functionality in at least paras. 165 – 171 & 187 – 201, noting that an “image code may be displayed on the display. For example, the electronic device 70 (electronic whiteboard, projector) may display the mage code,” and that a user checks into a room by scanning the image code with “terminal device 60.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Suzuki in the invention of Terashima with the motivation to provide a “technique for improving convenience when using the meeting room reserved by the user,” as evidenced by Suzuki (para. 4).
Claims 3 & 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terashima et al. (US 20190213819 A1), in view of Roosli et al. (US 20190295195 A1).
As per claim 3, Terashima discloses the limitations of claim 1. Terashima further discloses:
• wherein the on-demand rental facility comprises a locking device that locks and unlocks the on-demand rental facility (para. 37);
To the extent to which Terashima does not disclose the following limitations, Roosli teaches:
• the management server comprises an unlocking key issuing unit that issues an unlocking key for unlocking the locking device of the on-demand rental facility to the user on the basis of the reservation information stored in the storage unit; and when the locking device of the on-demand rental facility is unlocked by the unlocking key issued by the unlocking key issuing unit, the authorization unit authorizes the user of the on-demand rental facility to operate the device at the reservation date and time via the device operation unit. (See paras. 8 – 9, 11 – 12, 18, 20 – 27, & 30 – 34, noting that when the certificate pushed to the guest’s device unlocks the room “access system” comprising “electronic locks,” the certificate is then used to authenticate the user device to enable control over room during the reservation period.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Roosli in the invention of Terashima with the motivation “for gaining access to the room door,” as evidenced by Roosli (para. 8).
As per claim 9, Terashima discloses the limitations of claim 1. To the extent to which Terashima does not disclose the following limitations, Roosli teaches:
• wherein the management server generates authentication information uniquely for each reservation and invalidates the authentication information upon expiration of the reservation date and time (See paras. 8 – 9, 18, 25, 30, & 32 – 34, noting that a unique certificate is issued for each reservation and is deleted “after expiration of the certificate” at the end of the reservation period.). Motivation to combine Roosli persists.
As per claim 10, Terashima discloses the limitations of claim 1. Regarding the following limitations,
• wherein the authorization unit authorizes the user only after both: (i) verifying that the reservation information stored in the storage unit corresponds to the user and the current date and time; and (ii) receiving, via the user input means, authentication information issued for the reservation by the management server,
Terashima discloses, in para. 53 – 54, that the authorization unit authorizes the user after verifying that the reservation information stored in the storage unit corresponds to the user and the current date and time. To the extent to which Terashima does not disclose wherein the authorization unit authorizes the user after receiving, via the user input means, authentication information issued for the reservation by the management server, Roosli teaches this element in paras. 8 – 9, 18, 25, 30, & 32 – 34, noting that a unique certificate is issued for each reservation by a server and is received by the user device to authenticates user control over facility devices during the reservation period. Motivation to combine Roosli persists.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terashima et al. (US 20190213819 A1), in view of Roosli et al. (US 20190295195 A1), in view of Bargetzi et al. (US 20140074537 A1).
As per claim 4, Terashima discloses the limitations of claim 1. To the extent to which Terashima does not disclose the following limitations, Roosli teaches:
• wherein the management server comprises an identification information issuing unit that issues predetermined identification information to the user on the basis of the reservation information stored in the storage unit (abstract & paras. 8 – 9, 12 – 14, 23, 25, issuing a certificate, which can be a “crypto random number” identifier, to a guest by a reservation system.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Roosli in the invention of Terashima with the motivation “for gaining access to the room door,” as evidenced by Roosli (para. 8).
To the extent to which Terashima / Roosli does not disclose the following limitation, Bargetzi teaches:
• and when the identification information issued by the identification information issuing unit is received at the reservation date and time via the user input means, the authorization unit authorizes the user of the on-demand rental facility to operate the device at the reservation date and time via the device operation unit (paras. 298 – 307, receiving a “user ID” from the user’s device when the user checks in as an organizer, enabling the user to control room devices via “control signals in response to receiving a selection of the "start meeting" icon.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Bargetzi in the invention of Terashima / Roosli with the motivation “to provide more robust scheduling systems,” as evidenced by Bargetzi ([0014]).
Claims 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terashima et al. (US 20190213819 A1) in view of Bargetzi et al. (US 20140074537 A1).
As per claim 5, Terashima discloses the limitations of claim 1. Regarding the following limitations,
• wherein the authorization unit authorizes the user of the on-demand rental facility to operate the device via the device operation unit after an end of a previous reservation and before a start of the reservation date and time based on verification that the current date and time is within a pre-reservation authorization period associated with the reservation information stored in the storage unit,
Terashima discloses wherein the authorization unit authorizes the user of the on-demand rental facility to operate the device via the device operation unit based on verification that the current date and time is within a pre-reservation authorization period associated with the reservation information stored in the storage unit as outlined above and in at least paras. 47 & 49 – 57. To the extent to which Terashima does not disclose wherein the authorization unit authorizes the user of the on-demand rental facility to operate the device via the device operation unit after an end of a previous reservation and before a start of the reservation date and time, Bargetzi, in para. 293, teaches that the user may start a scheduled meeting early i.e., after end of previous reservation and before start of the reservation date and time on the basis of the reservation information. As per at least 244 – 246, 259, 261, & 271, the user is authorized to control the room equipment during the meeting.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Bargetzi in the invention of Terashima with the motivation “to provide more robust scheduling systems,” as evidenced by Bargetzi ([0014]).
As per claim 6, Terashima discloses the limitations of claim 1. To the extent to which Terashima does not disclose the following limitation, Bargetzi teaches:
• wherein the management server comprises an operation management unit that associates the user of the on-demand rental facility with the device operation unit to make user information, and stores and manages the user information in the storage unit, and stores setting information set in the device in advance via the device operation unit in the storage unit for each device operation unit (Paras. 183, 244 – 246, 259, 261, 271, 299, & 305, “the user may register a user ID with a scheduling application on the portable electronic device”; “preference information is uploaded and stored by the scheduling server 15 or the control processor and associated with a user ID. Upon the user reserving a conference room with the user ID, the scheduling server 15 or control processor associates the preference information with the reserved conference room.”; In other words, equipment control settings are stored in association with a used ID at the server in advance and are subsequently used to control the room equipment during the meeting.). Rationale to combine Bargetzi persists.
As per claim 7, Terashima / Bargetzi discloses the limitations of claim 6. To the extent to which Terashima does not disclose the following limitation, Bargetzi teaches:
• wherein the operation management unit stores in the storage unit, for each device operation unit, required/non-required information on whether or not the device is required, which is set in the device in advance via the device operation unit (Paras. 183, 244 – 246, 259, 261, 271, 299, & 305, “the user may register a user ID with a scheduling application on the portable electronic device”; “preference information is uploaded and stored by the scheduling server 15 or the control processor and associated with a user ID. Upon the user reserving a conference room with the user ID, the scheduling server 15 or control processor associates the preference information with the reserved conference room.”; In other words, required equipment control settings are stored in association with a used ID at the server in advance and are subsequently used to control the required room equipment during the meeting.). Rationale to combine Bargetzi persists.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628