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
This communication is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment for application number 18/860,351 received on 05/08/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1-3, and 5-11 are amended, currently pending, and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 or 35 U.S.C. 120.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 10/25/2024 has been considered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Upon review of amendment, the §102 rejections previously applied to the claims are withdrawn. The claims remain rejected under the grounds set forth in the §103 rejections below.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments – But for the following argument, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §101 rejections previously applied to the claims are raised in support of the amendments to the claims, which are believed to be fully addressed in the updated §101 rejections below.
Applicant argues (Remarks at pg. 7): “Applicant believes that the claims include utility”. In response, Examiner reminds Applicant that, as informed during the interview held on 04/16/2026, with Attorney Daniel Aleksynas, SPE Brian Epstein, and Examiner Gabriel Torres in attendance, the inquiry under 35 USC 101 is about the claims’ eligibility, not the claims’ utility.
Response to §103 arguments – Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §103 rejections previously applied to the claims are raised in support of the amendments to the claims, which are believed to be fully addressed in the updated §103 rejections below.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as further set forth in MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The claimed invention is analyzed to determine if it falls outside one of the four statutory categories of invention. See MPEP 2106.03
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are directed to a device (i.e., Manufacture). Therefore, claims 1-11 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
As drafted, the limitations recited by claims 1-11 fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea group by setting forth activities that could be performed mentally by a human (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Independent claim 1 recites a reservation assistance device with the following abstract limitations: “obtain a requested start time and a requested end time of the reservation; refer to the status data, output a proposal message for changing the requested start time to an end time of a reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the requested start time when (i) the reservation is acceptable in a period from the requested start time to the requested end time, (ii) a difference time period between the requested start time and an end time of a reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the requested start time is equal to or larger than the unit time period, and (iii) the difference time is less than a predetermined time period, wherein the predetermined time period is determined from a shortest time period in a menu provided by the shop; update the status data with adding the reservation starting from the end time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the requested start time in response to a reply indicating a change of the requested start time, wherein a duration of free time after the changed reservation is more than a corresponding duration of free time after the requested reservation, and wherein the duration of free time after the changed reservation allows more reservations than the corresponding duration of free time after the requested reservation.”.
Independent claim 3 recites a reservation assistance device with the following abstract limitations: “refer to the status data, and output a proposal message for changing an end time of a first time period to a start time of a second time period, when (i) a difference time period between the first time period in which the reservation is unacceptable and the second time period in which the reservation is unacceptable and that is immediately after the first time period is equal to or larger than the unit time period, (ii) the difference time period is less than a predetermined time period, and (iii) the reservation is unacceptable in the first time period due to the reservation of the customer, wherein the predetermined time period is determined from a shortest time period among menu time periods provided by the shop; update the status data by changing the end time of the first time period to the start time of the second time period in response to a reply indicating a change of the end time, wherein a duration of free time before the changed first time period is more than a corresponding duration of free time before the first time period, and wherein the duration of free time before the changed first time period allows more reservations than the corresponding duration of free time before the first time period.”.
Independent claim 9 recites a reservation assistance device with the following abstract limitations: “obtain a requested time period of the reservation, refer to the status data, identify a start candidate time that is acceptable if (A) or (B) is present: (A) (i) the status data indicates acceptable from the start candidate time during the requested time period and (ii) a difference time period between the start candidate time and an end time of a reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the start candidate time is zero or equal to or more than a predetermined time period, or (B) (i) the status data indicates acceptable from the start candidate time during the requested time period and (ii) a difference time period between a time at which the requested time period has elapsed from the start candidate time and a start time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately after the time is zero or equal to or more than the predetermined time period, wherein the predetermined time period is determined from a shortest time period among menu time periods provided by the shop; and wherein a new reservation starting from the identified start candidate time allows additional new reservations before or after the new reservation; and display the start candidate time identified by an identification unit, to the customer terminal of the customer.”.
As currently recited, the limitations of independent claims 1, 3, and 9, but for the additional elements recited, could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, or with the help of pen and paper.
Dependent claims 2, 5-8, 10-11 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Step 2A, Prong 2: An evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely a memory configured to store unit time periods and status data, one or more processors, and the customer terminal of the customer from claims 1/3/9, these additional elements have been evaluated but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for "inventive concept." See MPEP 2106.05.
Regarding the computing additional elements, namely a memory configured to store unit time periods and status data, one or more processors, and the customer terminal of the customer from claims 1/3/9, these additional element(s) has/have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements (computer hardware) or instructions/software (engine) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment, the internet, online) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Applicant’s specification recites the computing additional elements at a high level of generality. Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2, 5-8, and 10-11 recite the same abstract ideas as the independent claims along with further steps/details falling under the scope of the abstract idea itself and an additional abstract idea along with the same or substantially same generic computing element addressed above under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, which is incorporated herein.
The ordered combination of elements in the claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backer et al. (US 20170011311 A1, hereinafter “Backer”), in view of Mata (US 7463939 B1, hereinafter “Mata”), in further view of Monte (US 20180095938 A1, hereinafter “Monte”).
Regarding Claim 1: Backer teaches:
a memory configured to store unit time periods and status data ([0022] The hardware for practicing these methods can comprise a server having a processor, memory such as RAM or a hard disk, an input port for receiving data, and an output port for exporting data.; [0095] The queue-managing system (102) stores virtual queue data and updates them according to information or requests from entities or individuals.);
indicating whether or not a reservation from a customer is acceptable for each of the unit time periods at a shop; ([0152] If the IED informs the QMS that the user accepts proposed designated time, the QMS enters the user into a virtual queue at reference numeral (1506).; [0060] Examples include queues at a DMV, at government offices, queues for a table at a restaurant, queues for service at a restaurant, telephone queues for people waiting to talk on the phone with someone, virtual queues for an online meeting, queues to pick up a car at valet parking, queues for hotel check-in, queues for casino games, queues for admission to shows and/or night clubs, theme park attractions, theme park admission, healthcare providers, emergency rooms, dentists, tax offices, salons, Santa Claus pictures at the mall, retail shops, colleges (e.g., admissions, financial aid, advisement, registration, etc.), questions at Q&A sessions, queues to meet a person, queues at a fair, queues at freeway entrances, queues at the entrance to restricted freeway lanes, and many others.);
and one or more processors configured to: obtain a requested start time and a requested end time of the reservation requested by a customer terminal of the customer; ([0022] The hardware for practicing these methods can comprise a server having a processor, memory such as RAM or a hard disk, an input port for receiving data, and an output port for exporting data.; [0118] In yet a further example embodiment, the queue-managing system can be configured to dynamically and adaptively manage appointments for a specific time/date (e.g., Tuesday at 3 pm) for a given customer. By way of example and not of limitation, in a dynamically managed appointment, if the appointment time is delayed due to delays by the service provider, the queue managing system can be configured to automatically adjust the appointment times according to the order of booked appointment times. Specifically, if due to delays by the service provider, the 3 pm appointment is delayed to 3:30 pm, then instead of servicing the 3:30 pm appointment at 3:30 pm, the queue-managing system will adjust appointment times as necessary such that the service provider can service the first user in line (in other words, the user that had initially booked the 3 pm appointment) first, before attending to the 3:30 pm appointment. Therefore, the queue-managing system can be configured to manage a combination of a virtual queue and appointment times of variable lengths in a dynamic and adaptive manner.);
refer to the status data, ([0151] the QMS observes the user's location and queue status);
output a proposal message for changing the requested start time to an end time of a reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the requested start time to the customer terminal of the customer ([0159] If at reference numeral (1609), the QMS determines that the user's ETA exceeds the designated time, the method returns to reference numeral (1607) where the QMS suggests a new proposed designated time.);
update the status data with adding the reservation starting from the end time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the requested start time in response to a reply indicating a change of the requested start time, ([0062] Fourth, when the entity advances the actual queue or changes the actual queue, the entity sends with the entity-end device (108) the relevant information to the queue-managing system (102). Upon receiving the information, the queue-managing system (102) updates the virtual queue (202) accordingly.).
Backer doesn’t explicitly teach:
when (i) the reservation is acceptable in a period from the requested start time to the requested end time,
(ii) a difference time period between the requested start time and an end time of a reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the requested start time is equal to or larger than the unit time period,
and (iii) the difference time is less than a predetermined time period, wherein the predetermined time period is determined from a shortest time period in a menu provided by the shop;
wherein a duration of free time after the changed reservation is more than a corresponding duration of free time after the requested reservation,
and wherein the duration of free time after the changed reservation allows more reservations than the corresponding duration of free time after the requested reservation.
Mata teaches:
(ii) a difference time period between the requested start time and an end time of a reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the requested start time ([Column 29, Lines 58-59] APP.sub.1 is moved as proposed; [Fig. 11] L1: App.sub.1. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the advance of appointment 1 to a time immediately before the original time due to a conflict with a new request as equivalent to Applicant’s difference time period between the requested start time and end time of a reservation unacceptable.);
and (iii) the difference time is less than a predetermined time period, ([Fig. 10] L2: Shift); wherein the predetermined time period is determined from a shortest time period in a menu provided by the shop; ([Column 4, Lines 45-47] FIG. 10 conceptually illustrates how booked appointments may be shifted to accommodate the scheduling of a new appointment);
wherein a duration of free time after the changed reservation is more than a corresponding duration of free time after the requested reservation, ([Figs. 10 and 11] slot available before shift, slot available after shift; [Column 29, Lines 22-27] A more complicated and powerful shifting routine formed by combining a sequence of "cascading left shift" and "cascading right shift" moves can be used to open a time slot on the calendar for a new appointment.);
and wherein the duration of free time after the changed reservation allows more reservations than the corresponding duration of free time after the requested reservation. ([Column 28, Lines 35-52] Another reason for modifying booked appointments is to open a slot for booking a new appointment. Consider, for example, the calendar conceptually illustrated in FIG. 10. The calendar has three appointments APP.sub.1-APP.sub.3 booked for three lots L.sub.1-L.sub.3, respectively. Note that each appointment APP.sub.1-APP.sub.3 is booked within a corresponding commitment window CW.sub.1-CW.sub.3, respectively. Assume that the provider for whom this schedule is maintained wishes to schedule the APP.sub.4 for the lot L.sub.4. The proposed appointment time slot [TS.sub.4,TE.sub.4] conflicts with the scheduled appointment time [TS.sub.2,TE.sub.2] for the booked appointment APP.sub.2. However, the appointment APP.sub.2 has ample room within its commitment window CW.sub.2 within which to shift so that the appointment APP.sub.4 can still be scheduled. In this particular example, the appointment APP.sub.2 is shifted right, or later in time, within its commitment window CW.sub.2 so that the appointment APP.sub.4 may be scheduled and booked.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Backer with Mata’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to open a slot for booking a new appointment (Mata; [Column 28, Line 36]). By incorporating the teachings of Mata, one would’ve been able to move appointments to allow for more reservations.
Mata doesn’t teach:
when (i) the reservation is acceptable in a period from the requested start time to the requested end time,
(ii) a difference time period between the requested start time and an end time of a reservation unacceptable time period is equal to or larger than the unit time period,
Monte teaches:
when (i) the reservation is acceptable in a period from the requested start time to the requested end time, ([0169] use rules-based situation detection to recognize schedule conflicts and push/propose options for a resolution; [0175] The system may further automatically send the appointment date change notification to the meeting participant(s) and at the same time adds the newly scheduled appointment request to its fetch notifications, which may also cause a display of a fetch banner confirmation 1830. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider the fetch banner confirmation as equivalent to an acceptable request.);
(ii) a difference time period between the requested start time and an end time of a reservation unacceptable time period is equal to or larger than the unit time period, ([Fig. 17B] Meeting with James Time: 7:00 pm – 8:00 pm; [0169] use rules-based situation detection to recognize schedule conflicts and push/propose options for a resolution… The calendar and timeline scheduler herein may display a dialog 1715 stating the conflict in the form of, for example, “You have a Chicago Trade Show Event on this Date” and provide user-selectable resolution recommendations; [0171] Change the date of the San Francisco appointment after the Chicago Trade Show; [0172] Change the date of the San Francisco appointment before the Chicago Trade Show; [Fig. 12C] Minutes 1250. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider the 15 minutes increments shown in Fig. 12C as equivalent to the unit time period.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Backer with Monte’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to move an appointment to an alternative available day (Monte; [0030]). By incorporating the teachings of Monte, one would’ve been able to output a proposal message when the reservation is acceptable and when a time difference is greater than a time unit.
Regarding Claim 2: Backer teaches
wherein, when a difference time period between the requested end time and a start time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately after the requested end time is equal to or larger than the unit time period and is less than the predetermined time period, the one or more processors output a proposal message for changing the requested end time to the start time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately after the requested end time. ([0117] In yet a further embodiment of the joint queue-managing system and dynamic reservation system, when a reservation time for an individual is delayed, the individual can be informed of the delay and the expected delay time prior to the individual's arrival, thus minimizing inconvenience. Conversely, if the individual who made the reservation is delayed and cannot arrive at the previously assigned time, then the individual can inform the queue-managing system to request additional time. The joint queue-managing system and the dynamic reservation system can coordinate the changes in real-time to keep the flow of traffic moving, thus maximizing throughput. By keeping track of the actual times and lengths of appointments, the dynamic reservation system can maximize throughput while minimizing wait times by notifying users when they are actually likely to be served rather than using fixed-length fixed-time appointments.; [0118] the queue-managing system can be configured to dynamically and adaptively manage appointments for a specific time/date (e.g., Tuesday at 3 pm) for a given customer… the 3 pm appointment is delayed to 3:30 pm, then instead of servicing the 3:30 pm appointment at 3:30 pm, the queue-managing system will adjust appointment times as necessary such that the service provider can service the first user in line (in other words, the user that had initially booked the 3 pm appointment) first, before attending to the 3:30 pm appointment.).
Regarding Claim 3: Backer teaches
a memory configured to store unit time periods and status data ([0022] The hardware for practicing these methods can comprise a server having a processor, memory such as RAM or a hard disk, an input port for receiving data, and an output port for exporting data.; [0095] The queue-managing system (102) stores virtual queue data and updates them according to information or requests from entities or individuals.);
indicating whether or not a reservation from a customer is acceptable for each of the unit time periods at a shop; ([0152] If the IED informs the QMS that the user accepts proposed designated time, the QMS enters the user into a virtual queue at reference numeral (1506).; [0060] Examples include queues at a DMV, at government offices, queues for a table at a restaurant, queues for service at a restaurant, telephone queues for people waiting to talk on the phone with someone, virtual queues for an online meeting, queues to pick up a car at valet parking, queues for hotel check-in, queues for casino games, queues for admission to shows and/or night clubs, theme park attractions, theme park admission, healthcare providers, emergency rooms, dentists, tax offices, salons, Santa Claus pictures at the mall, retail shops, colleges (e.g., admissions, financial aid, advisement, registration, etc.), questions at Q&A sessions, queues to meet a person, queues at a fair, queues at freeway entrances, queues at the entrance to restricted freeway lanes, and many others.);
and one or more processors configured to: refer to the status data, ([0022] The hardware for practicing these methods can comprise a server having a processor, memory such as RAM or a hard disk, an input port for receiving data, and an output port for exporting data.; ([0151] the QMS observes the user's location and queue status);
and output a proposal message for changing an end time of a first time period to a start time of a second time period to a customer terminal of the customer, ([0159] If at reference numeral (1609), the QMS determines that the user's ETA exceeds the designated time, the method returns to reference numeral (1607) where the QMS suggests a new proposed designated time.);
update the status data by changing the end time of the first time period to the start time of the second time period ([0118] In yet a further example embodiment, the queue-managing system can be configured to dynamically and adaptively manage appointments for a specific time/date (e.g., Tuesday at 3 pm) for a given customer. By way of example and not of limitation, in a dynamically managed appointment, if the appointment time is delayed due to delays by the service provider, the queue managing system can be configured to automatically adjust the appointment times according to the order of booked appointment times. Specifically, if due to delays by the service provider, the 3 pm appointment is delayed to 3:30 pm, then instead of servicing the 3:30 pm appointment at 3:30 pm, the queue-managing system will adjust appointment times as necessary such that the service provider can service the first user in line (in other words, the user that had initially booked the 3 pm appointment) first, before attending to the 3:30 pm appointment. Therefore, the queue-managing system can be configured to manage a combination of a virtual queue and appointment times of variable lengths in a dynamic and adaptive manner.);
in response to a reply indicating a change of the end time, ([0008] If the user responds that the user wants to remain in the queue then the position of the user can be changed in the virtual queue.).
Backer doesn’t explicitly teach:
when (i) a difference time period between the first time period in which the reservation is unacceptable and the second time period in which the reservation is unacceptable and that is immediately after the first time period is equal to or larger than the unit time period,
(ii) the difference time period is less than a predetermined time period,
and (iii) the reservation is unacceptable in the first time period due to the reservation of the customer, wherein the predetermined time period is determined from a shortest time period among menu time periods provided by the shop;
wherein a duration of free time before the changed first time period is more than a corresponding duration of free time before the first time period,
and wherein the duration of free time before the changed first time period allows more reservations than the corresponding duration of free time before the first time period.
Mata teaches:
when (i) a difference time period between the first time period in which the reservation is unacceptable and the second time period in which the reservation is unacceptable and that is immediately after the first time period is equal to or larger than the unit time period, ([Fig. 10] L2: Sift, APP.sub.2; [Column 28, Lines 45-52] the appointment APP.sub.2 has ample room within its commitment window CW.sub.2 within which to shift so that the appointment APP.sub.4 can still be scheduled. In this particular example, the appointment APP.sub.2 is shifted right, or later in time, within its commitment window CW.sub.2 so that the appointment APP.sub.4 may be scheduled and booked.);
(ii) the difference time period is less than a predetermined time period, ([Fig. 10] L2: Shift);
and (iii) the reservation is unacceptable in the first time period due to the reservation of the customer, ([Fig. 10] Before Shift: APP.sub.2, APP.sub.4);
wherein a duration of free time before the changed first time period is more than a corresponding duration of free time before the first time period, ([Fig. 10] shows a time between APP.sub.3 and APP.sub.2 increasing by an amount of time equivalent to SHIFT after the change);
and wherein the duration of free time before the changed first time period allows more reservations than the corresponding duration of free time before the first time period. ([Column 28, Lines 35-52] Another reason for modifying booked appointments is to open a slot for booking a new appointment. Consider, for example, the calendar conceptually illustrated in FIG. 10. The calendar has three appointments APP.sub.1-APP.sub.3 booked for three lots L.sub.1-L.sub.3, respectively. Note that each appointment APP.sub.1-APP.sub.3 is booked within a corresponding commitment window CW.sub.1-CW.sub.3, respectively. Assume that the provider for whom this schedule is maintained wishes to schedule the APP.sub.4 for the lot L.sub.4. The proposed appointment time slot [TS.sub.4,TE.sub.4] conflicts with the scheduled appointment time [TS.sub.2,TE.sub.2] for the booked appointment APP.sub.2. However, the appointment APP.sub.2 has ample room within its commitment window CW.sub.2 within which to shift so that the appointment APP.sub.4 can still be scheduled. In this particular example, the appointment APP.sub.2 is shifted right, or later in time, within its commitment window CW.sub.2 so that the appointment APP.sub.4 may be scheduled and booked.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Backer with Mata’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to open a slot for booking a new appointment (Mata; [Column 28, Line 36]). By incorporating the teachings of Mata, one would’ve been able to move appointments to allow for more reservations.
Mata doesn’t teach:
wherein the predetermined time period is determined from a shortest time period among menu time periods provided by the shop;
Monte teaches:
wherein the predetermined time period is determined from a shortest time period among menu time periods provided by the shop; [Fig. 12C] Minutes 1250. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider the 15 minutes increments shown in Fig. 12C as equivalent to the shortest time periods provided by the shop.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Backer with Monte’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to select a date and time of a calendar event (Monte; [0022]). By incorporating the teachings of Monte, one would’ve been able to choose from menu time periods provided by the shop
Regarding claim 5: Backer teaches:
wherein, when the reservation is unacceptable in the first time period due to a break of a staff, the one or more processors outputs a proposal message for changing an end time of the break to a start time of the second time period, to a staff terminal of the staff. ([0118] if due to delays by the service provider, the 3 pm appointment is delayed to 3:30 pm); [0069] The queue-managing system (102) sends an automated voice message (410) notifying the cell phone (302) user the information regarding the status of the virtual queue.).
Regarding claim 6: Backer teaches:
wherein, when the one of more processors have made the proposal a predetermined number of times or more to the customer terminal of the customer who has made the reservation for the first time period, the one or more processors propose a change of the second time period. ([0157] At reference numeral (1605), the QMS receives a response from the user. If the IED informs the QMS that the user accepts proposed designated time, the QMS enters the user into a virtual queue at reference numeral (1606). If the IED informs the QMS that the user does not accept the proposed designated time, or if the user does not respond, the QMS proposes a new designated time at reference numeral (1607) and the method returns to reference numeral (1604) where the QMS informs the IED of the new proposed designated time.).
Regarding claim 7: Backer teaches:
wherein the customer is a customer who has answered in advance that a time change is possible. ([0117] Conversely, if the individual who made the reservation is delayed and cannot arrive at the previously assigned time, then the individual can inform the queue-managing system to request additional time.).
Regarding claim 8: Backer teaches:
wherein, when the difference time period is reduced or is made to be equal to or more than the predetermined time period by time change contents allowed by the customer in advance, the one or more processors makes the proposal. ([0005] The method also allows a user to request to be removed from the queue or change place in the queue and in response to that the virtual queue is changed in accordance with the user's request.; [0006] Optionally the method allows receipt from the user of a second reservation time later than the determined reservation time, and in that case the user is placed in the queue with the second reservation time.; [0117] In yet a further embodiment of the joint queue-managing system and dynamic reservation system, when a reservation time for an individual is delayed, the individual can be informed of the delay and the expected delay time prior to the individual's arrival, thus minimizing inconvenience. Conversely, if the individual who made the reservation is delayed and cannot arrive at the previously assigned time, then the individual can inform the queue-managing system to request additional time. The joint queue-managing system and the dynamic reservation system can coordinate the changes in real-time to keep the flow of traffic moving, thus maximizing throughput. By keeping track of the actual times and lengths of appointments, the dynamic reservation system can maximize throughput while minimizing wait times by notifying users when they are actually likely to be served rather than using fixed-length fixed-time appointments.; [0118] the queue-managing system can be configured to manage a combination of a virtual queue and appointment times of variable lengths in a dynamic and adaptive manner.; [0206] the QMS requests the user to provide alternate freeway or time choice. At reference numeral (3013), the QMS receives a new desired freeway or time choice and the method proceeds to reference numeral (3003) where the QMS sends a message to the operator of the desired freeway lane asking whether the desired lane is available at the desired time. ).
Regarding claim 9: Backer teaches:
a memory configured to store unit time periods and status data ([0022] The hardware for practicing these methods can comprise a server having a processor, memory such as RAM or a hard disk, an input port for receiving data, and an output port for exporting data.; [0095] The queue-managing system (102) stores virtual queue data and updates them according to information or requests from entities or individuals.);
indicating whether or not a reservation from a customer is acceptable for each of the unit time periods at a shop; ([0152] If the IED informs the QMS that the user accepts proposed designated time, the QMS enters the user into a virtual queue at reference numeral (1506).; [0060] Examples include queues at a DMV, at government offices, queues for a table at a restaurant, queues for service at a restaurant, telephone queues for people waiting to talk on the phone with someone, virtual queues for an online meeting, queues to pick up a car at valet parking, queues for hotel check-in, queues for casino games, queues for admission to shows and/or night clubs, theme park attractions, theme park admission, healthcare providers, emergency rooms, dentists, tax offices, salons, Santa Claus pictures at the mall, retail shops, colleges (e.g., admissions, financial aid, advisement, registration, etc.), questions at Q&A sessions, queues to meet a person, queues at a fair, queues at freeway entrances, queues at the entrance to restricted freeway lanes, and many others.);
and one or more processors configured to: obtain a requested start time and a requested end time of the reservation requested by a customer terminal of the customer; ([0022] The hardware for practicing these methods can comprise a server having a processor, memory such as RAM or a hard disk, an input port for receiving data, and an output port for exporting data.; [0118] In yet a further example embodiment, the queue-managing system can be configured to dynamically and adaptively manage appointments for a specific time/date (e.g., Tuesday at 3 pm) for a given customer. By way of example and not of limitation, in a dynamically managed appointment, if the appointment time is delayed due to delays by the service provider, the queue managing system can be configured to automatically adjust the appointment times according to the order of booked appointment times. Specifically, if due to delays by the service provider, the 3 pm appointment is delayed to 3:30 pm, then instead of servicing the 3:30 pm appointment at 3:30 pm, the queue-managing system will adjust appointment times as necessary such that the service provider can service the first user in line (in other words, the user that had initially booked the 3 pm appointment) first, before attending to the 3:30 pm appointment. Therefore, the queue-managing system can be configured to manage a combination of a virtual queue and appointment times of variable lengths in a dynamic and adaptive manner.);
refer to the status data, ([0151] the QMS observes the user's location and queue status);
Backer doesn’t teach:
identify a start candidate time that is acceptable if (A) or (B) is present: (A) (i) the status data indicates acceptable from the start candidate time during the requested time period and (ii) a difference time period between the start candidate time and an end time of a reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the start candidate time is zero or equal to or more than a predetermined time period, or (B) (i) the status data indicates acceptable from the start candidate time during the requested time period and (ii) a difference time period between a time at which the requested time period has elapsed from the start candidate time and a start time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately after the time is zero or equal to or more than the predetermined time period,
wherein the predetermined time period is determined from a shortest time period among menu time periods provided by the shop;
and display the start candidate time identified by an identification unit, to the customer terminal of the customer.
and wherein a new reservation starting from the identified start candidate time allows additional new reservations before or after the new reservation;
Mata teaches:
identify a start candidate time that is acceptable if (A) or (B) is present: (A) (i) the status data indicates acceptable from the start candidate time during the requested time period ([Column 11, Lines 11-15] The appointments scheduled through the scheduling decisions of the software agents 365 are "booked" on both the consumer and the provider's calendars. The appointment is booked for a duration in which it is expected the scheduled task will be accomplished.);
and (ii) a difference time period between the start candidate time and an end time of a reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the start candidate time is zero or equal to or more than a predetermined time period, ([Fig. 11] Before Shift: APP.sub.1, APP.sub.5, L1: APP.sub.1; [Column 29, Lines 13-26] The shifting can also be more complex than just shifting a single booked appointment. One such situation is shown in FIG. 11, wherein several booked appointments are shifted in a "cascading" fashion to accommodate the scheduling of a new appointment APP.sub.5. In FIG. 11, the new appointment APP.sub.5 seeks to schedule at the time for which the appointment APP.sub.1 is already booked. In this case, the commitment windows of all the booked appointments APP.sub.1-APP.sub.4 are ample enough to allow them to shift left (to an earlier time) in a "cascading" fashion to allocate the time slot for the new appointment APP.sub.5. A more complicated and powerful shifting routine formed by combining a sequence of "cascading left shift" and "cascading right shift" moves can be used to open a time slot on the calendar for a new appointment.),
or (B) (i) the status data indicates acceptable from the start candidate time during the requested time period and (ii) a difference time period between a time at which the requested time period has elapsed from the start candidate time and a start time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately after the time is zero or equal to or more than the predetermined time period,
and wherein a new reservation starting from the identified start candidate time allows additional new reservations before or after the new reservation; ([Column 28, Lines 35-52] Another reason for modifying booked appointments is to open a slot for booking a new appointment. Consider, for example, the calendar conceptually illustrated in FIG. 10. The calendar has three appointments APP.sub.1-APP.sub.3 booked for three lots L.sub.1-L.sub.3, respectively. Note that each appointment APP.sub.1-APP.sub.3 is booked within a corresponding commitment window CW.sub.1-CW.sub.3, respectively. Assume that the provider for whom this schedule is maintained wishes to schedule the APP.sub.4 for the lot L.sub.4. The proposed appointment time slot [TS.sub.4,TE.sub.4] conflicts with the scheduled appointment time [TS.sub.2,TE.sub.2] for the booked appointment APP.sub.2. However, the appointment APP.sub.2 has ample room within its commitment window CW.sub.2 within which to shift so that the appointment APP.sub.4 can still be scheduled. In this particular example, the appointment APP.sub.2 is shifted right, or later in time, within its commitment window CW.sub.2 so that the appointment APP.sub.4 may be scheduled and booked.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Backer with Mata’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to open a slot for booking a new appointment (Mata; [Column 28, Line 36]). By incorporating the teachings of Mata, one would’ve been able to move appointments to allow for more reservations.
Mata doesn’t teach:
wherein the predetermined time period is determined from a shortest time period among menu time periods provided by the shop;
and display the start candidate time identified by an identification unit, to the customer terminal of the customer.
Monte teaches:
wherein the predetermined time period is determined from a shortest time period among menu time periods provided by the shop; ([Fig. 12C] Minutes 1250. Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably consider the 15 minutes increments shown in Fig. 12C as equivalent to the shortest time periods provided by the shop.).
and display the start candidate time identified by an identification unit, to the customer terminal of the customer. (MONTE [0169] Referring to FIGS. 17A-17D, in the case of scheduling a calendar appointment that conflicts with a timeline event, a user attempts to schedule an appointment 1705 as shown in FIG. 17B (that may be navigated to from UI 1710 in FIG. 17A) in San Francisco during a trade show event that is taking place in Chicago at the same time. The calendar and timeline scheduler herein may display a dialog 1715 stating the conflict in the form of, for example, “You have a Chicago Trade Show Event on this Date” and provide user-selectable resolution recommendations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Backer with Monte’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to select a date and time of a calendar event (Monte; [0022]). By incorporating the teachings of Monte, one would’ve been able to choose from menu time periods provided by the shop.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backer et al. (US 20170011311 A1, hereinafter “Backer”), in view of Mata (US 7463939 B1, hereinafter “Mata”), in further view of Monte (US 20180095938 A1, hereinafter “Monte”), as applied to claims 1/3/9 above, in further view of Lee et al. (US 20220101268 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 10: Backer teaches:
Backer doesn’t teach:
wherein the one or more processors identify, from among the start candidate times at which the reservation of the requested time period is acceptable, the start candidate time at which the difference time period between the start candidate time and the end time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the start candidate time is less than the predetermined time period and the difference time period between the time at which the requested time period has elapsed from the start candidate time and the start time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately after the time is less than the predetermined time period, as a sub-start candidate time,
and displays the identified start candidate time and does not display the sub-start candidate time before receiving an instruction from the customer terminal and displays both of the identified start candidate time and sub-start candidate time in response to the instruction from the customer terminal of the customer.
Monte teaches:
and displays the identified start candidate time and does not display the sub-start candidate time before receiving an instruction from the customer terminal and displays both of the identified start candidate time and sub-start candidate time in response to the instruction from the customer terminal of the customer. ([0132] As an example, the spoken input of “Sara . . . create a new appointment with Jack from XYZ Corp. for Tuesday during the June conference in Iowa” could be recognized by the system as being a calendar context input. As the system is able to recognize the referenced time (i.e., “next Tuesday”) in its timeline, and has access to the XYZ company information and associated contacts, a new (at least partially) pre-populated meeting detail could be generated and presented to the user. In response, the user could then view his calendar for open times (in some embodiments, some suggested times could be proactively presented to the user) and complete the meeting form with additional details.; [Figs. 17A-17D] Fig. 17B teaches a user interface that displays appointment “Meeting with James” with a date, start candidate time, and end candidate time, and does not display any sub-start candidate times until after navigating to the next user interface, shown in Fig. 17C, with the option to change the appointment.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Backer with Monte’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to generate a user interface including user interface representations of an integrated calendar and timeline visualization to, in response to user input, navigate and control aspects of both the calendar events and the timeline events (Monte; [Abstract]). By incorporating the teachings of Monte, one would’ve been able to display different information at different times or together.
Lee teaches:
wherein the one or more processors identify, from among the start candidate times at which the reservation of the requested time period is acceptable, the start candidate time at which the difference time period between the start candidate time and the end time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the start candidate time is less than the predetermined time period and the difference time period between the time at which the requested time period has elapsed from the start candidate time and the start time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately after the time is less than the predetermined time period, as a sub-start candidate time, ([Fig. 5] Table 500; [0052] FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of a scheduling assistant 100, according to an embodiment. The scheduling assistant 100 may autonomously perform scheduling of tasks such as meetings, calls, break times, etc. based on an input 102. The input 102 can be a combination of natural language and/or user interface (UI) input.; [0066] Another set of instructions to find available slots or check availability of resources 412 may then be executed. A set of instructions to filter slots 414 may be executed thereafter. The scheduler may execute one or more sets of instructions 406, 408, 410, 412, 414 to find more slots.; [0067] The scheduler strategies can be an extensible framework for creating strategies to be used in various scenarios depending on the specific scheduling task, roles of participants and any other factors. The scheduler strategies can be used to control the behaviour of the search constraint generator and the slot engine by setting specific attributes, combining the results of multiple runs for various constraints or for different groups of users/participants depending on higher-order goals. For example, the specific attributes can be minimum number of slots that are required; whether the scheduler hide slots with availability conflicts, and if so, for which participants; an explicit list of slots that the scheduling engine should not return as valid; and whether the scheduler should automatically go beyond the original search range if no viable candidate times or common slots can be found.; [0068] As mentioned above, the scheduler may comprise a search constraint generator and a slot engine.; [0083] The build_availability_map step 704 may convert constraints into actual slots of the desired duration, with the start and end time, and bucketing them into the slots that are free or have availability conflicts (e.g. [[Mon 10 am=>{:free_slots=>[ . . . ] . . . , :conflict_slots=>[ . . . ]} ], [Tues 10 am=>{:free_slots=>[ . . . ] . . . , :conflict_slots=>[ . . . ]}], . . . ]).; [0101] FIG. 14 is a schematic diagram 1400 illustrating an example of adding buffer time, according to an embodiment. There may be 2 buffers to be considered for a conflict event 1404—conflict event's buffer 1402 and scheduling event's buffer 1406. The conflict event's buffer 1402 can be based on the conflict event's 1404 event type and preference buffer time of the particular user. The buffer time can be added before the conflict event 1404. The scheduling event's buffer 1406 can be based on the event type of the current scheduling task and preference buffer time of the particular user. The buffer time can be added after the conflict event 1404.; [Fig. 15] 1500; [Fig.16] 1600; [0109] The sub-module to check diversity and reorder slots may be used to improve the scheduling. After a preferred slot has been picked, net slot(s) can be picked and re-ranked based on additional criteria such as overlap, time distance, location, etc. that apply relative to the first slot picked. For example if the first slot picked is at 9 am, although the next preferred slot according to aggregate score may be at 10 am, the system may down-rank that slot and pick the next slot from the list, favouring 2 pm as an example. In this manner, the system can achieve diversity of slots within each day or bucket period.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Backer with Lee’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to optimize the generation or determination of high-probability slots so that the number of slots to be considered can be minimized for better performance, without any hard-coded rules or arbitrary assumptions about working days or user preferences (Lee; [0072]). By incorporating the teachings of Lee, one would’ve been able to identify a sub-start candidate time.
Regarding claim 11: Backer doesn’t explicitly teach:
wherein when the sub-start candidate time is present between two adjacent start candidate times among the start candidate times, the one or more processors display a development instruction portion such that the development instruction portion corresponds to the two adjacent start candidate times, and when the development instruction portion is selected, the display unit displays the sub- start candidate time between the two adjacent start candidate times.
Lee teaches:
wherein when the sub-start candidate time is present between two adjacent start candidate times among the start candidate times, the one or more processors display a development instruction portion such that the development instruction portion corresponds to the two adjacent start candidate times, and when the development instruction portion is selected, the display unit displays the sub- start candidate time between the two adjacent start candidate times. ([0015] at least one processor; [0052] FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram illustrating an example of a scheduling assistant 100, according to an embodiment. The scheduling assistant 100 may autonomously perform scheduling of tasks such as meetings, calls, break times, etc. based on an input 102. The input 102 can be a combination of natural language and/or user interface (UI) input.; [0107] Slots within each day or bucket may be ranked according to their aggregate scores and/or any other sub-scores as desired.; [0108] Thereafter, within each bin of ranked slots, iterative steps may be performed to pick or select the preferred slot based on the aggregate score that has been assigned to the slot by the slot scoring module. This step can comprise a single iteration which slots are picked in order of or based on their scores. However, in this manner, there may be scenarios such as two slots with the highest scores may overlap with each other (e.g. 2 pm-245 pm and 230 pm-315 pm) or the slots may all be in the morning (e.g. 8 am and 9 am) even if some afternoon slots are available. While technically both slots may be viable, this may be counter to expected human behaviour when scheduling and can result in sub-optimal performance due to the need for further back-and-forth interactions.; [0109] The sub-module to check diversity and reorder slots may be used to improve the scheduling. After a preferred slot has been picked, net slot(s) can be picked and re-ranked based on additional criteria such as overlap, time distance, location, etc. that apply relative to the first slot picked. For example, if the first slot picked is at 9 am, although the next preferred slot according to aggregate score may be at 10 am, the system may down-rank that slot and pick the next slot from the list, favouring 2 pm as an example. In this manner, the system can achieve diversity of slots within each day or bucket period.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine modified Backer with Lee’s additional feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to generate a flat, ranked list of slots as the output of the slot engine (Lee; [0111]). By incorporating the teachings of Lee, one would’ve been able to identify a sub-start candidate time between 2 adjacent times.
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 GABRIEL J TORRES CHANZA whose telephone number is (571)272-3701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on (571)270-5389. 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.
/G.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights