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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-20 of the Amendment of 02 March 2026.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) Referring to the pending claims, the “method” of claims 1-10 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101, the “system” of claims 11-19 constitutes a machine under the statute, and the “product” of claim 20 constitutes a manufacture under the statute. As such, claims 1-20 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A method, the method comprising: identifying ... a scheduling status of at least one work space within a physical space; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... detecting, ... within the physical space, a physical presence of people at the at least one work space, wherein the detecting comprises tracking a time of detection of a physical presence of users at the at least one work space; ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... identifying, based upon the scheduling status and the physical presence, an availability status of each of the at least one work spaces for a time period, wherein the availability status is at least in part based upon the time of detection of a physical presence of people at the at least one work space and wherein the identifying of the availability status comprises calculating a likeliness of use score of the at least one work space that identifies how likely the at least one work space is to be used for the time period; and ...” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
“... an instruction to display ... the availability status of each of the at least one work space.” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes
The above-listed limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, associated with scheduling users and work spaces, which falls under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “identifying” steps), and evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (e.g., the recited “detecting” and “display” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
The claimed “identifying” is “from a scheduling application” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “detecting” involves “utilizing sensors” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
Providing the claimed “instruction” involves “transmitting” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “display” is “on a display device” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: mere automation of manual processes, instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated in the form of selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in an environment, for collection, analysis, and display, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, language specifying that the process steps of virus screening were used within a telephone network or the Internet, because limiting the use of the process to these technological environments did not provide meaningful limits on the claim, and language specifying that the abstract idea of budgeting was to be implemented using a "communication medium" that broadly included the Internet and telephone networks, because this limitation merely limited the use of the exception to a particular technological environment, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding pending claims 2-10, the claims depend from claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the recited “wherein the availability status indicates a time since the detection of the physical presence at the at least one work space and the scheduling status of the at least one work space” limitation of claim 2, the recited “wherein the availability status identifies a time until the at least one work space will be available as identified from the scheduling status and the physical presence” limitation of claim 3, the recited “wherein the identifying the scheduling status comprises accessing ... scheduling status information associated with the physical space” limitation of claim 4, the recited “wherein the identifying the availability status comprises inputting the scheduling status and the detected physical presence inputs into an ... model and receiving the availability status as an output from the ... model” limitation of claim 5, the “comprising transmitting instructions to display a recommendation of a work space for a user” limitation of claim 6, the “comprising transmitting instructions to rank work spaces based upon the availability status” limitation of claim 7, the “further comprising storing ... information related to the physical presence of the user at the at least one work space and information captured” limitation of claim 8, the recited “further comprising receiving a query requesting additional information related to activities occurring in the physical space and returning a response to the query by querying ... with the query and extrapolating the additional information” limitation of claim 9, and the recited “wherein the displaying comprises displaying the availability status as an overlay on a visualization of the physical space” limitation of claim 10). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the recited “calendar application comprising” limitation of claim 4, the recited “artificial intelligence” limitations of claim 5, the recited “within a data storage location ... by the sensors” limitations of claim 8, and the recited “data storage location” limitation of claim 9). Accordingly, claims 2-10 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 11-19, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-10, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-10. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-10 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 11-19. Limitations recited by claims 11-19 that do not appear to have a direct counterpart in claims 1-10, such as the recited computer hardware limitations at the start of claim 11, fail to warrant a finding of eligibility, because such limitations amount to additional elements that fail to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, for the same reasons as the additional elements of claims 1-10. Claims 11-19 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 20, while the claim is of different scope relative to claims 1 and 11, the claim recites limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1 and 11. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1 and 11 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 20. Claim 20 is, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2010/0153160 A1 to Bezemer et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Bezemer”), in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2024/0086804 A1 to Vatidis et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Vatidis”).
Regarding claim 1, Bezemer discloses the following limitations:
“A method, the method comprising: identifying, from a scheduling application, a scheduling status of at least one work space within a physical space; ...” - Bezemer discloses, “FIG. 3 illustrates the software structure of the semantics-based meeting management system 10. System 10 comprises at least one directory server 302 and at least one knowledge component, or server 328” (para. [0054]), “Input data is fed into the system 10 via the user interface 306 and the knowledge acquisition component 338 for setting up meeting schedules and/or querying meeting information. In one embodiment, the user interface 306 is implemented in a browser based application. The knowledge acquisition layer 338 extracts input data that conforms to ontologies and sends the data to the knowledge server 328” (para. [0056]), and “By using various data acquisition components, the knowledge server 328 collects, and updates in real-time, all types of meeting related information such as for example people's contact information, location and schedule, meeting room location, size and availability, voice bridge availability, other meeting facilities (e.g., interactive whiteboards, audio/video equipment, etc.), data communication servers and services, and scheduled meeting information (e.g., meeting name, participants, starting date/time, duration, booked meeting room(s) and meeting facilities, voice bridge and remote access information, participant preferences, corporate hierarchy, etc.)” (para. [0062]). Identifying, from operation of the knowledge server, scheduled meeting information, including information about booked meeting rooms, in Bezemer, reads on the recited limitation.
“... detecting, utilizing sensors within the physical space, a physical presence of people at the at least one work space, wherein the detecting comprises tracking a time of detection of a physical presence of users at the at least one work space; ...” - Bezemer discloses, “For example, the meeting management system detects a user's location by using a plurality of methods. It obtains user location data from the LDAP Server and using it as the regular location for the user. As described above, it also allows the user set up temporary location change via the meeting scheduler UI. If a user equips an RFID tag, the sensor 346 in the knowledge acquisition layer 338 detects the user's current location and provides that information to the meeting management system to update the user's information. Other methods of detecting a user's location may also be used. The meeting management system then uses machine learning to find the pattern of the user's location change. When the user schedules a meeting, the meeting scheduler will use the learned pattern to set up the user's location in the date/time range the user specified unless the user has explicitly specified the location at the date/time” (para. [0106]), “For example, it may be the case that the meeting management system finds that user A, whose regular location is at Con, is always at Wes on every Friday. On a Thursday morning, the system detects from the user's RFID tag that user A is at SWAT, when user A wants to schedule a meeting in the afternoon or in the morning of the next day (Friday). The meeting scheduler first uses a threshold (eg., before the end of the day) to determine the user's location. For the user's preferred time range that is within the threshold, eg., the preferred time range in Thursday afternoon, the meeting scheduler uses SWAT as the user's location. For the user's preferred time range that is beyond the threshold, eg., the preferred time range in Friday morning, the meeting scheduler retrieves the user's location pattern (at Wes on every Friday) and use Wes as the user's location. The meeting scheduler then find feasible time slots in the user's preferred time range using the above location information. As a result, if the user selects a feasible time slot on Thursday afternoon, the meeting will be held in SWAT; if the user selects a feasible time slot on Friday morning, the meeting will be held in Wes” (para. [0107]), “each meeting room is equipped with a video camera, and the window 1142 displays a real-time photo 1154 captured by the video camera installed in the meeting room” (para. [0135]), and “wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one RFID sensor at a respective location sensing the presence of one or more people at the location” (claim 16). Detecting, using the video cameras installed in the meeting rooms, and/or using the RFID sensors at the respective locations, the users’ presence in or absence from the respective locations on specific days at specific times, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of Bezemer and Vatidis (hereinafter referred to as “Bezemer/Vatidis”) teaches limitations below that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Bezemer:
“... identifying, based upon the scheduling status and the physical presence, an availability status of each of the at least one work spaces for a time period, wherein the availability status is at least in part based upon the time of detection of a physical presence of people at the at least one work space and wherein the identifying of the availability status comprises calculating a likeliness of use score of the at least one work space that identifies how likely the at least one work space is to be used for the time period; and ...” - See the aspects of Bezemer that have been cited above. Bezemer also discloses, “As shown in FIG. 7e, the starting time of the currently selected feasible time slot 752 is shown at the area 756. Because the meeting scheduler detects that the meeting participants are at two different locations: Wes and Con, it automatically checks the availability of meeting resources, eg., the meeting rooms at each location, the voice bridge and the data communication server. The available meeting rooms at Wes are listed in the drop-down menu 758, the available meeting rooms at Con are listed in the drop-down menu 760. Similarly, the available voice bridges to be used between Wes and Con are listed in the drop-down menu 762, and the conference servers required to establish data connection between computers in Wes and Con are listed in the drop-down menu 764” (para. [0098]), “the meeting scheduler first finds all feasible time slots within the preferred date/time range. Then, the meeting scheduler selects a time slot to book the meeting from the feasible time slots based on some optimization criteria. In a preferred embodiment, the meeting scheduler divides each day into a plurality of meeting-scheduling time pieces (eg., 15 minutes per meeting-scheduling time piece), where a meeting consists of an integer number of meeting-scheduling time pieces. For each object (eg., a person, meeting room or resource), the meeting scheduler counts the number of times, denoted as B, that a meeting-scheduling time piece (e.g., 9:00 am to 9:15 am) was occupied in a historical time window (eg., in the last month). It also counts the total number of times, denoted as T, the time piece occurred in the historical time window. Then, it calculates the busy rate for the object at the time piece as Busy Rate=B/T” (para. [0112]), “For proactive meeting rescheduling, the meeting scheduler calculates the busy rate for each feasible time slot by first averaging the busy rate of all participants, meeting rooms and resources at each time piece of the time slot, and then averaging the busy rate of all time pieces in the time slot to obtain the average busy rate of the time slot. After obtaining the average busy rate of each time slot, the meeting scheduler selects the time slot with the lowest busy rate and moves this meeting” (para. [0113]), “the meeting management system assigns different weights to objects, where the one with higher priority is assigned with a higher weight. Then, the busy rate of an object is adjusted (eg., multiplied) by the corresponding weight before calculating any average busy rate” (para. [0114]), and “Although the room 1140 is booked from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm according to the schedule 1152, the real-time photo 1154 shows that the room is currently empty, which implies that the meeting from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm has ended earlier than scheduled. According to the schedule 1152, the next meeting in this room will start at 2:30 pm. Thus, the user may directly occupy this room and start the meeting, or set up a meeting in this room for a temporary meeting starting, say, in 5 minutes and ending before 2:30 pm. Optionally, the camera could be connected to a computer system that is used to detect when all attendees have left the room and notify the meeting scheduler that the room is now available to book or for impromptu meetings” (para. [0136]). Identifying, based on the schedule and the presence of attendees in specific locations at specific times per RFID data, that rooms are available for booking or for impromptu meetings, in Bezemer, reads on the recited “identifying, based upon the scheduling status and the physical presence, an availability status of each of the at least one work spaces for a time period, wherein the availability status is at least in part based upon the time of detection of a physical presence of people at the at least one work space” limitation. The use of busy rate calculations for the attendees, meeting rooms, and resources, that is indicative of how busy the attendees, meeting rooms, and resources are expected to be at specified times, in Bezemer, appears to read on the recited “wherein the identifying of the availability status comprises calculating a likeliness of use score of the at least one work space that identifies how likely the at least one work space is to be used for the time period” limitation. However, because the busy rate aspects of Bezemer are not explicitly linked with, for example, recited limitations like “likeliness of use,” the examiner cites Vatidis. Vatidis discloses, “the suggestion engine utilizes self-learning algorithms to extrapolate the likelihood of resources that have been allocated will actually be utilized at the time period. The self-learning algorithm utilizes a plurality of parameters that are independent of the environment that will affect the likelihood of whether a resource is likely to be utilized or not. These parameters can include, but are not limited to: an identification of the user that has been allocated the resource, the department of the user, the time period for which that resource has been allocated (e.g. day of the week), additional timing information (e.g. the month or season in which the time period falls), pattern of attendance of the user and/or other users, and seniority of the user” (para. [0170]). Extrapolating the likelihood of resources being utilized at specific time periods, in Vatidis, when applied in the context of the scheduling processes of Bezemer, reads on the recited “wherein the identifying of the availability status comprises calculating a likeliness of use score of the at least one work space that identifies how likely the at least one work space is to be used for the time period” limitation.
Vatidis discloses “allocation of resources in a building” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Bezemer. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the scheduling processes, of Bezemer, to include the extrapolating of likelihood of resources being utilized at specific time periods, of Vatidis, for optimization of resource utilization, per Vatidis (see title, para. [0114], and throughout the specification).
Bezemer/Vatidis teaches the following limitations of claim 1:
“... transmitting an instruction to display, on a display device, the availability status of each of the at least one work space.” - Bezemer discloses, “FIGS. 7a-7f illustrate the meeting scheduler user interface. As shown in FIG. 7a, the user interface is partitioned into three parts, including a title bar 702, a left window 704 and a calendar window 706” (para. [0089]), “The time slots 750 and 752 at which all participants and meeting resources are free are marked as feasible” (para. [0096]), and “FIG. 11a illustrates the screen after the user clicks the Map button, which shows the map 1102 of the floor where the kiosk is installed. People/meeting room names are marked on the rooms in the map, and the status (eg. available, busy, out of office) of each person and meeting is also clearly marked” (para. [0133]). The system instructing the user interfaces to display, on screens, feasible time slots for meeting rooms based on availability, in Bezemer, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 2, Bezemer/Vatidis teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the availability status indicates a time since the detection of the physical presence at the at least one work space and the scheduling status of the at least one work space.” - See the aspects of Bezemer that have been mentioned above. Detecting in real-time when attendees have left their meeting rooms, in the context of tracking times of day during which rooms are booked for meetings and either occupied or unoccupied, in Bezemer, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Bezemer/Vatidis teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the availability status identifies a time until the at least one work space will be available as identified from the scheduling status and the physical presence.” - See the aspects of Bezemer that have been mentioned above. The system identifying meeting rooms as occupied or available, including how much additional time meeting rooms will be occupied, based on the scheduling of the meeting rooms and the presence or absence of attendees, in Bezemer, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 4, Bezemer/Vatidis teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the identifying the scheduling status comprises accessing a calendar application comprising scheduling status information associated with the physical space.” - See the aspects of Bezemer that have been mentioned above.
Regarding claim 5, Bezemer/Vatidis teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the identifying the availability status comprises inputting the scheduling status and the detected physical presence inputs into an artificial intelligence model and receiving the availability status as an output from the artificial intelligence model.” - See the aspects of Bezemer that have been mentioned above. Bezemer also discloses, “The semantics-based meeting management system uses machine learning algorithms to learn the preferences of the user. Based on the user's historical meeting scheduling activity, the meeting scheduler automatically sets up default values that best match the user's preference” (para. [0090]), “According to the user's preference pattern the semantics-based meeting management system has learned, the feasible time slot 752 that best matches the user's preference is selected as the default choice and marked with a dark color” (para. [0097]), and “If a user equips an RFID tag, the sensor 346 in the knowledge acquisition layer 338 detects the user's current location and provides that information to the meeting management system to update the user's information. Other methods of detecting a user's location may also be used. The meeting management system then uses machine learning to find the pattern of the user's location change. When the user schedules a meeting, the meeting scheduler will use the learned pattern to set up the user's location in the date/time range the user specified” (para. [0106]). The system identifying feasible locations, in the form of available meeting rooms, based on the schedule, the users’ current locations, and workings of the machine learning, thereby specifying potential locations based thereon, in Bezemer, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Bezemer/Vatidis teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, comprising transmitting instructions to display a recommendation of a work space for a user.” - See the aspects of Bezemer that have been cited above. The system displaying best matches for meeting rooms in facilities, in Bezemer, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 7, Bezemer/Vatidis teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, comprising transmitting instructions to rank work spaces based upon the availability status.” - See the aspects of Bezemer and Vatidis that have been mentioned above. Vatidis also discloses, “The process then obtains 1206 a meeting room of suitable capacity and availability. The process then identifies 1207 attendees that have desk bookings and their location (i.e. those team members with already allocated resources and where those resources are). The process then identifies 1208 attendees without desk bookings (i.e. those team members for which resources have not yet been allocated) and their workstation requirements/preferences. The process then ranks 1209 rooms and dates (time periods) based on ability to accommodate those team members who have not yet had resources allocated to them. Optionally, the system may further rank 1210 the suggested resource allocation for the team members based on the already allocated resources (e.g. may rank higher available resources that are spatially proximate to resources that have already been allocated). Finally, the system provides 1211 the ranked list of options to the attendees. This may be a proactive suggestion to team members (e.g. receipt of an email or push notification), or may be done in response to a later request from a team member when that team member submits a request to reserve a resource. Each team member (and the user making the request, if that user is not already a team member) may also be provided with a notification identifying team members who are not able to attend the scheduled meeting” (para. [0222]). The system taking steps to rank rooms based on availability and ability to accommodate team members, in Vatidis, when used in the context of scheduling meeting rooms, in Bezemer, reads on the recited limitation. The rationales for combining the teachings of the cited references, from the rejection of claim 1, also apply to this rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Bezemer/Vatidis teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising storing, within a data storage location, information related to the physical presence of the user at the at least one work space and information captured by the sensors.” - See the aspects of Bezemer that have been mentioned above. Bezemer also discloses, “the knowledge server 328 collects, and updates in real-time, all types of meeting related information such as for example people's contact information, location and schedule, meeting room location, size and availability, voice bridge availability, other meeting facilities (e.g., interactive whiteboards, audio/video equipment, etc.), data communication servers and services, and scheduled meeting information (e.g., meeting name, participants, starting date/time, duration, booked meeting room(s) and meeting facilities, voice bridge and remote access information, participant preferences, corporate hierarchy, etc.)” (para. [0062]). The knowledge server collecting information about people’s locations in meeting rooms of facilities, based on camera footage and/or RFID devices, in Bezemer, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 9, Bezemer/Vatidis teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 8, further comprising receiving a query requesting additional information related to activities occurring in the physical space and returning a response to the query by querying the data storage location with the query and extrapolating the additional information.” - See the aspects of Bezemer that have been mentioned above. Bezemer also discloses, “a query endpoint receiving queries about resources for events and responding to the queries based on the resource-utilization model” (Abstract), “a client-side application 16 receives queries from users relating to scheduling of events, communicates with the server-side semantics-based application 17 to obtain query results based on a resource-utilization model, and provide query results to users” (para. [0050]), “The output of the system 10 is sent to the user interface 306 and/or other applications 310 to, for example, update schedules of user(s), reserve meeting facilities, prepare meeting resources, notify users of a meeting schedule, send reminders for an upcoming meeting, send users information related to a meeting, and/or reply to user queries with query results such as for example feasible schedules, location of a person, etc.” (para. [0055]), and “Information can be inferred using description logic axioms when a query is made on the meeting data stored in the triples store” (para. [0065]). Receiving queries from users about resources for events (for example, meetings in meeting rooms), scheduling of the events, and the like, and providing results to the queries following querying of meeting data stored in the triples store and inferring information, in Bezemer, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 10, Bezemer/Vatidis teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the displaying comprises displaying the availability status as an overlay on a visualization of the physical space.” - Bezemer discloses, “FIG. 11a illustrates the screen after the user clicks the Map button, which shows the map 1102 of the floor” (para. [0133]), and “As illustrated in FIG. 11c, if the user clicks on a meeting room 1140, a window 1142 pops up showing the detail of the room including the name 1144, capacity 1146, phone number 1148, equipments 1150 (such as interactive whiteboard, etc.) and schedule 1152. Preferably, each meeting room is equipped with a video camera, and the window 1142 displays a real-time photo 1154 captured by the video camera installed in the meeting room” (para. [0135]). Displaying the schedule of a room with a window overlapping the map of the “4TH FLOOR,” as shown in FIG. 11c of Bezemer, reads on the recited limitation.
Regarding claims 11-19, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-10, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1-10. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1-10 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 11-19. Limitations recited by claims 11-19 that do not appear to have a direct counterpart in claims 1-10, such as the recited hardware limitations at the beginning of claim 11, are disclosed by Bezemer (see para. [0140]). Claims 11-19 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Bezemer/Vatidis.
Regarding claim 20, while the claim is of different scope relative to claims 1 and 11, the claim recites limitations similar to those recited by claims 1 and 11. As such, the rationales applied to reject claims 1 and 11 also apply for purposes of rejecting claim 20. Claim 20 is, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Bezemer/Vatidis.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 8-20, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. The applicant argues that the claims are not directed to the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. (Amendment, pp. 8-11.) The applicant also argues that the claim recitations are not managing personal behavior or interactions between people, and instead are an algorithm to determine if a work space may be available through the use of sensors and such. (Amendment, pp. 11 and 12.) The examiner disagrees. The claims recite steps for monitoring people and helping those people schedule meetings with each other. Scheduling meetings between people is a form of managing interactions between people. An algorithm can be viewed as a mental process, especially one involving monitoring people (e.g., taking roll, signing people in, etc.) and scheduling meetings between them (which historically has been performed using the mind and pen and paper). The emphasis on sensors in the claims has no relevance in Step 2A, Prong One, because sensors are additional elements.
The applicant also argues that the claims recite limitations that cannot be performed in the human mind. (Amendment, p. 12.) The applicant emphasizes acts performed by sensors and computing systems. (Amendment, pp. 12 and 13.) The examiner disagrees. Additional elements like sensors and computing systems have no relevance at Step 2A, Prong One. When those limitations are removed, the steps that remain are capable of being performed by the human mind. The fact that a sensor detects a person’s presence does not make it impossible for a person to detect another person’s presence using their mind and their vision. When the additional elements are removed from the claim, the remaining elements are easily performed mentally with or without the assistance of pen and paper, simply by keeping records and pondering a schedule.
The applicant also argues that the claims provide integration at Step 2A, Prong Two, via application of identifying an availability status of a work space utilizing sensors and a likeliness of use score. (Amendment, pp. 13 and 14.) The applicant argues that the claims are not merely a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. (Amendment, p. 14.) The applicant argues that the claims delineate specific functions performed by specific components. (Amendment, p. 14.) The applicant also argues that the claims represent an improvement to technology, in that identifying availability status of a work space even if the scheduling status may be contrary to the availability status is an improvement to a technological field. (Amendment, p. 15.) The examiner disagrees. The claims are a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception because the additional elements, in the context of the claims as a whole, are nothing more than generic, conventional computer and sensors componentry, where the sensors perform mere data gathering, and the computer system performs wholly conventional functions. The claims amount of applying generic, conventional computers and hardware to scheduling resources. While scheduling meetings may be improved by use of computers and hardware, as compared to manual means, scheduling meetings is not a technology or a technical field. It is an abstract idea. An improvement to the abstract idea is not an eligibility-warranting improvement as meant by MPEP 2106.05(a).
The applicant also argues that the claims recite steps that are unconventional. (Amendment, p. 17.) According to the applicant, with conventional techniques, a person has to rely on the scheduling status of a work space, which might be inaccurate. (Amendment, p. 17-20.) The examiner disagrees. Conventionally, a person can look at a scheduling book, and then peek into a meeting room to see if a room is occupied or empty. Also, when it comes to looking at what is (or isn’t) well-understood, routine, conventional activity per the meaning of MPEP 2106.05(d), the primary question is whether the additional elements are well-understood, routing, conventional activity, not whether abstract idea elements are well-understood, routing, conventional activity. The applicant’s arguments appear to take the latter position.
On pp. 20-22, the applicant argues for reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 102. The applicant argues that Bezemer does not disclose, teach, or suggest the recited “identifying, based upon the scheduling status and the physical presence, an availability status of each of the at least one work spaces” limitation, as the photo aspects of Bezemer are deficient. The examiner disagrees. The schedule data and combination of RFID and photo aspects of Bezemer provide the claimed functionality. Note that the physical presence of a user at a specific location over time (as reported by their RFID tag) can be used to establish a pattern that is then used to schedule meetings, thereby defining, at least in part, availability of meeting rooms.
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 THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights