DETAILED 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the cited references do not describe managing user assignments. The Examiner disagrees. The limitation in question is indeed taught by O’Keefe. Applicant appears to be arguing the intended result of the positively recited portion regarding assignment of a work area. The recited portions in question, “to avoid interactions”; “to avoid instance”, etc. The recitations do not impose a specific, structural or manipulative difference on the prior art. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues that the addition of the term “real time” should result in the claims reciting a practical application. The Examiner disagrees The recitation of the term “real time” does noting to show that the claims are not directed to the abstract idea itself. Performing steps in real time does not lend itself to reciting a practical application. In real time does not show an improvement to technology to a problem that is rooted in computer technology. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
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 1-7, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite:
a work pod area comprising a plurality of work pods available for use by a plurality of users, and
managing appointments for use of the work pods by the plurality of users, staggers access to the work pod area by the plurality of users such that users avoid interactions with other users upon entry and exit from the work pod area, and
further wherein manages each user’s work pod assignment to minimize instances of a subsequent user from having to travel past an occupied work pod.
The claims falls into the abstract idea groupings of (b) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity ** fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)**
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of marketing or sales activities or behaviors but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than recited, “reservation system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being certain methods of organizing human activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A-Prong 2
The recited limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements, reservation system. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f);
- (reservation system, network)
The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Integration into a practical application requires the additional element(s) to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. This is not the case in the instant application. Further, 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 component; mere data gathering/post solution activity; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B
Eligibility requires that the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. As discussed above, this is where the instant application falls short. The claims do not include additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already
presented (that is, they further limit the organizing of human activities at step 2A —
Prong One without adding any new additional elements other than those already
analyzed above with respect to the independent claims at 2A — Prong Two; moreover
claim 4 describes a kiosk; 7-a display and 9- lighting. But these additional elements do not remedy the deficiencies.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment
and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims without
adding any new additional elements. Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly
more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 9-11, 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keefe-Sally U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0228348 A1 in view of Kvamme U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0090959 A1
As per Claims 1 and 14, O’Keefe-Sally teaches a work pod area comprising a plurality of work pods available for use by a plurality of users (see para. 17-18, 38 and fig.4C, the Examiner is interpreting a private office/ area or a configured phone booth as a work pod), and
a reservation system, accessible by a plurality of users over a network, for managing appointments for use of the work pods by the plurality of users in real time (see para. 17 and 57),
further wherein the reservation system manages each user’s work pod assignment to minimize instances of a subsequent user from having to travel past an occupied work pod (see para. 17 and 57)
O’Keefe-Sally does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Kvamme wherein the system staggers access to the work area by the plurality of users such that users avoid interactions with other users upon entry and exit from the work area (see para. 110). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was fled to modify the system of O’Keefe-Sally to include the teachings of Kvamme to manage the flow of users based on parameters determined by the system, as taught by the cited portion of Kvamme.
As per Claim 5, O’Keefe-Sally in view of Kvamme teach the system of claim 1 as described above. O’Keefe further teaches wherein the work pod area is accessible by appointment only (see para. 53).
As per Claims 6 and 15, O’Keefe-Sally in view of Kvamme teach the system of claim 5 as described above. O’Keefe further teaches wherein the appointments are limited to a set time and duration (see para. 56 and 68).
As per Claims 8 and 17, O’Keefe-Sally in view of Kvamme teach the system of claim 5 as described above. O’Keefe further teaches wherein the reservation system is accessible to the plurality of users over a network (see para. 24 and 27).
As per Claim 9, O’Keefe-Sally in view of Kvamme teach the system of claim 1 as described above. O’Keefe further teaches wherein each work pod comprises dimmable lighting controlled by the user assigned to the work pod (see para. 38 and fig. 6E, the examiner is interpreting configurable lighting as dimmable).
As per Claims 10 and 18, O’Keefe-Sally in view of Kvamme teach the system of claim 1 as described above. O’Keefe further teaches wherein each of the work pods comprise a desk area and a chair (see fig. 4C).
As per Claims 11 and 19, O’Keefe-Sally in view of Kvamme teach the system of claim 1 as described above. O’Keefe further teaches wherein the work pod comprises an entryway, and the desk area is positioned such that the user of the work pod faces away from the entryway when using the desk.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keefe-Sally U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0228348 A1 in view of Kvamme U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0090959 A1 in further view Graziano U.S. Patent No. 11/238,382 B1
As per Claim 2, O’Keefe-Sally in view of Kvamme teach the system of claim 1 as described above. O’Keefe-Sally does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Graziano wherein the work pod area comprises a separate entry and exit (see Col. 30 lines 53-57). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was fled to modify the system of O’Keefe-Sally and Kvamme to include the teachings of Graziano to allow continuous collaboration between meeting attendees and prevent disturbance of employees waiting to enter a space, as taught by Graziano.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keefe-Sally U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0228348 A1 in view of Kvamme U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0090959 A1 in further view of Vivadelli U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2008/0109289 A1
As per Claim 3, O’Keefe-Sally in view of Kvamme teach the system of claim 1 as described above. O’Keefe-Sally does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Vivadelli comprising a check-in area for staging the plurality of users (see para. 108, the Examiner is interpreting the location of the check-in kiosk as a staging area). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was fled to modify the system of O’Keefe-Sally and Kvamme to include the teachings of Vivadelli to ensure accurate resource availability information, as suggested by Vivadelli.
As per Claim 4, O’Keefe-Sally in view of Kvamme teach the system of claim 3 as described above. O’Keefe-Sally does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Vivadelli wherein the check-in area further comprises a kiosk where users interface with the reservation system (see para. 108). The motivation is the same as opined above.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keefe-Sally U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0228348 A1 in view of Kvamme U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0090959 A1 in further view of Bastiyali U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0329878 A1
As per Claims 7 and 16, O’Keefe-Sally in view of Kvamme teach the system of claim 6 as described above. O’Keefe-Sally does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Bastiyali wherein the work pod further comprises a display for communicating remaining appointment time to the user (see para. 14 and 31). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was fled to modify the system of O’Keefe-Sally and Kvamme to include the teachings of Bastiyali to allow a user to know how much time they have left on a reservation, as taught by the cited portions of Bastiyali.
Claims 12-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Keefe-Sally U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0228348 A1 in view of Kvamme U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0090959 A1 in further view of Zouiyen U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0323226 A1
As per Claims 12 and 20, O’Keefe-Sally in view of Kvamme teach the system of claim 6 as described above. O’Keefe-Sally does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Zouiyen wherein each of the work areas comprise a rest area separate from the desk area (see para. 4 and 16). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was fled to modify the system of O’Keefe-Sally and Kvamme to include the teachings of Zouiyen to allow an office worker to feel rested and rejuvenated, as taught by the cited portion of Zouiyen.
As per Claim 13, O’Keefe-Sally in view of Kvamme and Zouiyen teach the system of claim 12 as described above. O’Keefe-Sally does not explicitly teach the limitation taught by Zouiyen wherein the rest area comprises a lounge chair (see para. 26 and 41). The motivation is the same as opined above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TONYA S JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)270-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-2:30, First Fridays Off.
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.
/TONYA JOSEPH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628