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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-final action in response to RCE filed on 12/19/2025. Claims 1-11, 13-14 are pending.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/19/2025 has been entered.
Response to Argument
Regarding 101 rejection, for at least the reasons that unlock the door would integrate abstract idea into practical application, the 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding 103 rejection, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of newly cited prior arts.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is amended to describe “check-in procedures” and “a check-in procedure”. These appears to be complete different check-in procedure(s). This appears to be a typographical error in naming convention. Examiner recommend renaming them to clearly show their relationship.
All dependent claims 2-9, 13, 14 are objected based on dependency.
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 (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.
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 1-2, 6-11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barnes (US 20160292737) in view of Fliess (US 20140207499), further in view of Ollila (Ollila, John, “IHG’s Digital Check-In With Manual Process”, loyaltylobby, https://loyaltylobby.com/2021/04/14/ihgs-digital-check-in-with-manual-process/, 04/14/2021), further in view of Dikman (US 20190138982).
As per claim 1, Barnes discloses A system, comprising:
A plurality of hotel servers managed by a plurality of hotels
a terminal possessed by a user (see at least Barnes, Fig. 1, device 101), wherein the terminal comprises:
at least one memory storing a set of instructions (see at least Barnes, Fig. 1, memory 160); and
at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions (see at least Barnes, Fig. 1, 150 and 155, CPU and processor) to:
store reservation information of the hotel including a start date of stay and reservation holder identifying information that identifies a reservation holder of the hotel in association with each other, wherein the hotel is among the plurality of hotels (see at least Barnes, 0179, “… device 101 transmits product identifying information, which may include name, … date (in the case of travel tickets or reservations)…” See also 0180-0181 for hotel embodiment regarding one of hotels out of three choices of hotels.);
transmit authentication information to a hotel server, among the plurality of hotel servers (see at least Barnes, 0183,”… the device 101 transmits user identifying information which includes the user's name, a confirmation number (in the case of a reservation);
ask the user to agree to provide the reservation holder identifying information to the hotel server
wherein the terminal uses a hotel management application to make reservations at the plurality of hotels
wherein the hotel server is configured to perform a check-in procedure of the user Examiner notes this step merely involves server and terminal, thus no registration card is needed for this step. See response to argument above regarding interpretation of “a check-in procedure”)
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to:
acquire a preference of the user as to whether or not the user wishes to use a facility of the hotel (see at least 0187, transmit information regarding purchase of additional products such as food, movie, gambling credit); and
transmit the acquired preference to the hotel server (see at least 0187, user may place a food order), and
Barnes discloses providing reservation holder identifying information prior to start date of the stay but does not explicitly disclose a predetermined period is set. Fliess, however, teaches remote automatically check-in for hotel room based on predetermined period before the start date of stay (see at least Fliess, 0028, “Reservation service 140 transmits reservation data to online check-in service … upon determining that the corresponding start date is approaching (e.g., two days away) …”).
Additionally, Barnes discloses different hotels but does not disclose having different hotel groups for these different hotels. Fliess also teaches this (see at least Fliess, Fig. 6, where reservations for Philadelphia Mariott and Holiday Inn express Philadelphia, as well as Home2 Suites Philadelphia are all managed by Fliess’ system).
While Barnes strongly suggests at least the step of sending unlock codes need not create a registration card, it does not explicitly states so. Ollila, however, teaches online check-in procedure does not require creating registration card (see last paragraph of page 1 and the screenshot on page 2 where a check-in is performed but picking up key may still be required).
Barnes/Fliess while strongly suggest the hotel having a terminal for processing check-in, they nevertheless does not explicitly states so. However, this is also taught by Ollila (page 1, front desk that can swipe credit card or sign form)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to apply Ollila’s check-in procedures to Barnes/Fliess for the purpose of demonstrating how one ordinary skilled in the art would understand the meaning of “a check-in procedure” before the effective filing date of present invention.
Barnes/Fliess/Ollila still does not disclose
wherein the hotel server, in a case where the user wishes to use the facility, provides the user with information about the facility via the check-in terminal installed in the hotel.
While Ollila strongly suggest the front desk device can be used to show a bill, which would indicate information to users about the facility if they wish to use it (page 2, where bill is part of check-out procedure that can be reviewed on user’s mobile device), it nevertheless does not explicitly state so. Dikman teaches a check-in terminal installed in a hotel that can be used to show information about a facility user expressed interest in using (see at least Dikman, Fig. 54-55 for a kiosk being used by a client and see Fig. 1 where client device is the only device communicating between client and server. See 0023 that client device is used to communicate with system 10. See 0103 of using the kiosk for upselling opportunity, which for example are shown in Fig.17-20 where users make selection and information is presented. See 0112 that the same system can be used for hotels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Dikman’s check-in kiosk with Barnes/Fliss/Ollila’s hotels for the purpose of having a dedicated terminal for user to self-check-in at the place of business.
As per claim 2, Barnes further discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the hotel server stores the reservation holder identifying information of the reservation holder, and sets a status of a check-in of the reservation holder to advance check-in completed when the hotel guest identifying information received from the terminal and the stored reservation holder identifying information match (Barnes, 0186, “After payment information sufficient for check in is supplied … the hotel computer system transmits check in information to the device, which includes a room number and entry code.”).
As per claim 3, Barnes discloses the system according to claim 2, wherein the hotel server stores the reservation holder identifying information of the reservation holder, the status of the check-in and the authentication information in association with each other, and
wherein the
wherein the hotel server identifies the status of the check-in of the reservation holder stored based on the received authentication information, and notifies the has been successful when the identified status is check-in completed (Barnes, 0186, “After payment information sufficient for check in is supplied … the hotel computer system transmits check in information to the device, which includes a room number and entry code.”).
Barnes does not explicitly disclose more than one computers being part of hotel computer system where at least one computer is a check-in terminal for performing a check-in procedure at the hotel. Ollila teaches a terminal of such exist in front desk. In any case, Dickman teaches a check-in kiosk being used for hotel (see at least Dikman, Fig. 54-55 for a kiosk being used by a client and see Fig. 1 where client device is the only device communicating between client and server. See 0112 that the same system can be used for hotels).
The rationale to combine would persist.
As per claim 4, Barnes discloses the system according to claim 3, wherein the
Barnes does not explicitly but Dikman teaches a check-in terminal for performing a check-in procedure at the hotel (see at least Dikman, Fig. 54-55).
The rationale to combine would persist.
As per claim 5, Barnes further discloses the system according to claim 4, wherein the biometric information is a face image or feature value extracted from the face image (see at least Barnes, 0103, where authentication based on face).
As per claim 6, Barnes further discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to:
store user identifying information that identifies the user (see at least Barnes, 0183, “the device 101 transmits user identifying information which includes the user's name”); and
ask the user to agree to provide the reservation holder identifying information to the hotel server when the user identifying information and the reservation holder identifying information match (see at least Barnes, 0181, “the device 101 automatically (or after prompting the user for permission to check in) checks the user into the hotel”).
As per claim 7, Barnes further discloses the system according to claim 1,wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to:
display information related to a reservation of the hotel match (Barnes, 0186, “After payment information sufficient for check in is supplied … the hotel computer system transmits check in information to the device, which includes a room number and entry code.”).
As per claim 8, Barnes further discloses the system according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to:
store a status of an advance check-in corresponding to a reservation for which the hotel guest identifying information has been transmitted (Barnes, 0186, “After payment information sufficient for check in is supplied … the hotel computer system transmits check in information to the device, which includes a room number and entry code.”); and
display the status of the advance check-in when displaying the information related to the reservation of the hotel (Barnes, 0186, “After payment information sufficient for check in is supplied … the hotel computer system transmits check in information to the device, which includes a room number and entry code.” Examiner notes room number and entry code would represent status and information related to reservation).
As per claim 9, Barnes discloses the system according to claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to:
display the status of the advance check-in by changing a color of a figure.
Barnes simply does not disclose the check-in status can be provided via color-changing scheme. Barnes, however, discloses that providing notification to a user by changing a color of a figure (Barnes, 0155, arrow would change color to indicate location and turn direction). Barnes also discloses using different color to make messages more noticeable (0322).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Barnes’ color-changing notification to check-in status of Barnes for the purpose of getting attention of user because this information is pertinent.
Claims 10-11 contains limitations substantially similar to claim 1 and they would be rejected under similar rationale set forth above.
Claims 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barnes (US 20160292737) in view of Fliess (US 20140207499), further in view of Ollila (Ollila, John, “IHG’s Digital Check-In With Manual Process”, loyaltylobby, https://loyaltylobby.com/2021/04/14/ihgs-digital-check-in-with-manual-process/, 04/14/2021), further in view of Dikman (US 20190138982) further in view of Vallance (US 20210295696).
As per claim 13, Barnes does not but Vallance teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to:
obtain information as to whether the user wishes to use the parking lot of the reserved hotel (see at least Vallance, 0043-0045, building can be a hotel and location can include parking spot. See 0046 regarding automating the process of finding parking spaces); and
transmit the obtained information to the hotel server (see Fig. 2B, where user can access website to send information over to server. See 0046 regarding kiosk based operation), and
wherein hotel server provides, in a case where the user wishes to use the parking lot, the user with information about the parking lot via a check-in terminal installed in the reserved hotel (see 0046 regarding kiosk based check-in system. See Fig. 5G for sample response regarding parking information).
Barnes and Dikman discloses advertising amenities to guests but does not explicitly teach these amenity can be parking. As shown above, Vallance teaches hotel can have parking spaces attached to it.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Vallance’s kiosk-based receptionist system including web browser with Barnes’ system to access hotel server via web browser for the purpose of making things easier for customer to park at destination.
Claims 14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barnes (US 20160292737) in view of Fliess (US 20140207499), further in view of Ollila (Ollila, John, “IHG’s Digital Check-In With Manual Process”, loyaltylobby, https://loyaltylobby.com/2021/04/14/ihgs-digital-check-in-with-manual-process/, 04/14/2021), further in view of Dikman (US 20190138982) further in view of Ghorpade (US 20180061155).
As per claim 14, Barnes discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to:
store user identification information identifying the user (see at least Barnes, 0179, “… device 101 transmits product identifying information, which may include name, … date (in the case of travel tickets or reservations)…;
request the user to consent to providing the reservation holder identifying information to the hotel server if the user identifying information and the reservation holder identifying information match (see at least Barnes, 0183,”… the device 101 transmits user identifying information which includes the user's name, a confirmation number (in the case of a reservation) …” See also 0185, “the hotel computer system may simply use the payment information … that was supplied when the reservation was made to obtain payment.”, noting 0183 occurs based on reservation was previously made); and
Barnes does not but Ghorpade teaches
send a change of hotel guest notification including a reservation number for the reserved hotel to the hotel server if the user identifying information and the reservation holder identifying information do not match (see at least 0033 details or information associated includes reservation and identity needs to match. See also Fig. 7, failed information would trigger redirect user in 61), and
wherein the hotel server stores information indicating that a guest of a reservation corresponding to the reservation number included in the change of hotel guest notification has been change (see 0082-0083, user ID of those attempting will be logged in access detail).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Ghorpade’s access policy with Barnes’ system for the purpose of making sure only correct person enters a room.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628