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 First Office Action on the merits in reply to application number 18/860,351 filed on 10/24/2024.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
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 “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea group directed to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II), and “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 limitations:
a storage device configured to store status data indicating whether or not a reservation from a customer is acceptable for each of unit time periods; (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the steps to “store status data” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application);
an obtaining unit, including one or more processors, configured to obtain a requested start time and a requested end time of the reservation requested by the customer; (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the steps to “obtain a requested start time and a requested end time” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, even if considered as an additional element, these steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.);
and a proposal unit, including one or more processors, configured to refer to the status data, and when the reservation is acceptable in a period from the requested start time to the requested end time and 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 a unit time period and is less than a predetermined time period, output a proposal of changing the requested start time to the end time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the requested start time, to the customer. (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the steps in this claim limitation fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea grouping directed to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Independent claim 3 recites a reservation assistance device with the following limitations:
a storage device configured to store status data indicating whether or not a reservation from a customer is acceptable for each of unit time periods; (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the steps to “store status data” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application);
and a proposal unit, including one or more processors, configured to refer to the status data, and when a difference time period between a first time period in which the reservation is unacceptable and a second time period in which the reservation is unacceptable and that is immediately after the first time period is equal to or larger than a unit time period and is less than a predetermined time period, propose a change of the first time period or the second time period. (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the steps in this claim limitation fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea grouping directed to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
Independent claim 9 recites a reservation assistance device with the following limitations:
a storage device configured to store status data indicating whether or not a reservation from a customer is acceptable for each of unit time periods; (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the steps to “store status data” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application);
an obtaining unit, including one or more processors, configured to obtain a requested time period of the reservation requested by the customer; (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the steps to “obtain a requested time period” could be accomplished mentally, such as by human observation, evaluation, judgement, or with the help of pen and paper. Additionally, even if considered as an additional element, these steps amount to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data gathering.);
and an identification unit, including one or more processors, configured to refer to the status data and identify, from among start candidate times at which the reservation of the requested time period is acceptable, a start candidate time at which 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 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; (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the steps in this claim limitation fall under the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity abstract idea grouping directed to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
and a display unit configured to display the start candidate time identified by the identification unit, to the customer. (But for the additional elements – underlined – recited in this claim limitation, the steps to “display the start candidate time” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as insignificant application).
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2, and Step 2B recited by the independent claims are: storage device, obtaining unit, including one or more processors, proposal unit, including one or more processors, identification unit, including one or more processors, and display unit.
Dependent claims 2, 4-8, and 10-11 further narrow the abstract idea and do not introduce any additional elements for consideration under said steps. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract ideas as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
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 storage device, obtaining unit, including one or more processors, proposal unit, including one or more processors, identification unit, including one or more processors, and display unit., 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 storage device, obtaining unit, including one or more processors, proposal unit, including one or more processors, identification unit, including one or more processors, and display unit, 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).
Furthermore, even if the store status data, obtain a requested start time and a requested end time, obtain a requested time period, and display the start candidate time steps are interpreted as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as noted in MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the obtain a requested start time and a requested end time, and obtain a requested time period extra-solution activity has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
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 2-4, 6, and 8 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakata (US 20150278716 A1, hereinafter “Sakata”).
Regarding claim 9: Sakata teaches:
a storage device configured to store status data indicating whether or not a reservation from a customer is acceptable for each of unit time periods; ([0072] in the case of the apparatus 100 of a user, the storage unit 103 stores the user schedule information registered by the user. The storage unit 103 stores the presentation information received from the server device 200.; [0166] automatic reservation may also be performed after notifying a user of the presentation information indicating that automatic reservation is possible (automatic reservation is proposed) and obtaining agreement of the user.; [0167] the message becomes a sentence indicating that automatic reservation is possible in FIG. 6B. In addition, for example, in FIG. 6B, in addition to the “cancel” button, an “agreement” button and a “pending” button are displayed. When agreeing the notified automatic reservation, the user carries out an operation of the “agreement” button. When intending to withhold agreement of the notified automatic reservation, the user carries out an operation of the “pending” button.; [0168] When the “agreement” button is operated, a request to perform automatic reservation is sent from the apparatus 100 of a user to the server device 200. The server device 200 receiving the request sends the reservation instruction information described above to the apparatus 100 of a hairdresser. The apparatus 100 of a hairdresser registers facility available time and a user name included in the reservation instruction information in the facility schedule information of the storage unit 103.);
an obtaining unit, including one or more processors, configured to obtain a requested time period of the reservation requested by the customer; ([0064] The apparatus 100 is an information processing device (terminal device) that is capable of utilizing reservation assistance service provided by the server device 200 and is, for example, a smartphone, a tablet, a PC, a TV, and the like… The schedule information (hereinafter, referred to as user schedule information) is, for example, information of an application in which the user is capable of arbitrarily registering an event and the like by time and date (for example, a scheduler, a calendar application, a diary application, and the like). Details of the user schedule information are described later using FIG. 5.).
and an identification unit, including one or more processors, ([0064] The apparatus 100 is an information processing device (terminal device) that is capable of utilizing reservation assistance service provided by the server device 200 and is, for example, a smartphone, a tablet, a PC, a TV, and the like.);
configured to refer to the status data and identify, from among start candidate times at which the reservation of the requested time period is acceptable, a start candidate time at which 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 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; ([0006] In one general aspect, the techniques disclosed here feature a reservation assistance method including: obtaining user schedule information that has a plurality of events of a user registered by time and date, facility schedule information that has available time of a facility providing predetermined service registered therein, and information that indicates correspondence relationship of a predetermined event out of the plurality of events and the facility; detecting first available time that is before time and date of the predetermined event and also after a current clock time using the user schedule information; detecting a common time period between the first available time and second available time that is available time of a first facility corresponding to the predetermined event using the facility schedule information and the information that indicates correspondence relationship; making a primary reservation of the facility in the common time period for the user; generating presentation information that is to present the primary reservation to the user; and sending the presentation information to a terminal device of the user.);
and a display unit configured to display the start candidate time identified by the identification unit, to the customer. ([0070] For example, in the case of the apparatus 100 of a user, the notification unit 102 carries out display of presentation information. The presentation information is information sent from the server device 200 to the apparatus 100 of a user and includes information of the automatic reservation being performed and details of the automatic reservation (for example, time and date, shop, hairdresser, and the like). A display example of the presentation information is described later using FIGS. 6A and 6B.).
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (US 20150278716 A1, hereinafter “Sakata”), in view of Backer et al. (US 20170011311 A1, hereinafter “Backer”).
Regarding Claim 1: Sakata teaches:
a storage device configured to store status data indicating whether or not a reservation from a customer is acceptable for each of unit time periods; ([0072] in the case of the apparatus 100 of a user, the storage unit 103 stores the user schedule information registered by the user. The storage unit 103 stores the presentation information received from the server device 200.; [0166] automatic reservation may also be performed after notifying a user of the presentation information indicating that automatic reservation is possible (automatic reservation is proposed) and obtaining agreement of the user.; [0167] the message becomes a sentence indicating that automatic reservation is possible in FIG. 6B. In addition, for example, in FIG. 6B, in addition to the “cancel” button, an “agreement” button and a “pending” button are displayed. When agreeing the notified automatic reservation, the user carries out an operation of the “agreement” button. When intending to withhold agreement of the notified automatic reservation, the user carries out an operation of the “pending” button.; [0168] When the “agreement” button is operated, a request to perform automatic reservation is sent from the apparatus 100 of a user to the server device 200. The server device 200 receiving the request sends the reservation instruction information described above to the apparatus 100 of a hairdresser. The apparatus 100 of a hairdresser registers facility available time and a user name included in the reservation instruction information in the facility schedule information of the storage unit 103.);
an obtaining unit, including one or more processors, configured to obtain a requested start time and a requested end time of the reservation requested by the customer; ([0064] The apparatus 100 is an information processing device (terminal device) that is capable of utilizing reservation assistance service provided by the server device 200 and is, for example, a smartphone, a tablet, a PC, a TV, and the like… The schedule information (hereinafter, referred to as user schedule information) is, for example, information of an application in which the user is capable of arbitrarily registering an event and the like by time and date (for example, a scheduler, a calendar application, a diary application, and the like). Details of the user schedule information are described later using FIG. 5.).
Sakata doesn’t explicitly teach:
and a proposal unit, including one or more processors, configured to refer to the status data, and when the reservation is acceptable in a period from the requested start time to the requested end time and 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 a unit time period and is less than a predetermined time period, output a proposal of changing the requested start time to the end time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the requested start time, to the customer.
Backer teaches:
and a proposal unit, including one or more processors, configured to refer to the status data, and when the reservation is acceptable in a period from the requested start time to the requested end time and 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 a unit time period and is less than a predetermined time period, output a proposal of changing the requested start time to the end time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately before the requested start time, to 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.; [Fig. 15]; [0144] At reference numeral (1405), the queue managing system (102) invites the user to the physical queue when the queue managing system (102) estimates that the user's ETA is a time when the physical queue will be sufficiently short to accommodate the user and those others in the physical queue having priority over others in the virtual queue.; [0145] Unless the user requests a later time, the user proceeds to the service location, whereupon the user is admitted to the physical queue at reference numeral (1406) when the physical queue is sufficiently short to accommodate the user and those others in the physical queue having priority over others in the virtual queue.; [0146] When the user is admitted to the physical queue, QMS removes the user from the virtual queue at reference numeral (1407). Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret the invitation to join the physical queue at a time earlier that expected based on availability and duration, as equivalent to proposing changing the requested start time to a time period immediately before the original (requested) start time.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Sakata with Backer’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to alter a user's position in the queue (Backer; [0154]). By incorporating the teachings of Backer, one would’ve been able to propose the new start time being earlier.
Regarding Claim 2: Sakata doesn’t explicitly teach:
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 proposal unit outputs a proposal of changing the requested end time to the start time of the reservation unacceptable time period immediately after the requested end time.
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 proposal unit outputs a proposal of 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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Sakata and Backer with Backer’s additional feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to manage a combination of a virtual queue and appointment times of variable lengths in a dynamic and adaptive manner (Backer; [0118]). By incorporating the teachings of Backer, one would’ve been able to propose the new start time being later.
Regarding claim 3: Sakata teaches:
a storage device configured to store status data indicating whether or not a reservation from a customer is acceptable for each of unit time periods; ([0072] in the case of the apparatus 100 of a user, the storage unit 103 stores the user schedule information registered by the user. The storage unit 103 stores the presentation information received from the server device 200.; [0166] automatic reservation may also be performed after notifying a user of the presentation information indicating that automatic reservation is possible (automatic reservation is proposed) and obtaining agreement of the user.; [0167] the message becomes a sentence indicating that automatic reservation is possible in FIG. 6B. In addition, for example, in FIG. 6B, in addition to the “cancel” button, an “agreement” button and a “pending” button are displayed. When agreeing the notified automatic reservation, the user carries out an operation of the “agreement” button. When intending to withhold agreement of the notified automatic reservation, the user carries out an operation of the “pending” button.; [0168] When the “agreement” button is operated, a request to perform automatic reservation is sent from the apparatus 100 of a user to the server device 200. The server device 200 receiving the request sends the reservation instruction information described above to the apparatus 100 of a hairdresser. The apparatus 100 of a hairdresser registers facility available time and a user name included in the reservation instruction information in the facility schedule information of the storage unit 103.).
Sakata doesn’t explicitly teach:
and a proposal unit, including one or more processors, configured to refer to the status data, and when a difference time period between a first time period in which the reservation is unacceptable and a second time period in which the reservation is unacceptable and that is immediately after the first time period is equal to or larger than a unit time period and is less than a predetermined time period, propose a change of the first time period or the second time period.
Backer teaches:
and a proposal unit, including one or more processors, configured to refer to the status data, and when a difference time period between a first time period in which the reservation is unacceptable and a second time period in which the reservation is unacceptable and that is immediately after the first time period is equal to or larger than a unit time period and is less than a predetermined time period, propose a change of the first time period or the second time period. ([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.; [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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Sakata with Backer’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to alter a user's position in the queue (Backer; [0154]). By incorporating the teachings of Backer, one would’ve been able to propose a new time.
Regarding claim 4: Sakata doesn’t teach:
wherein, when the reservation is unacceptable in the first time period due to the reservation of the customer, the proposal unit outputs a proposal of changing a reservation end time to a start time of the second time period, to the customer.
Backer teaches:
wherein, when the reservation is unacceptable in the first time period due to the reservation of the customer, the proposal unit outputs a proposal of changing a reservation end time to a start time of the second time period, to the customer. ([0117] 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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Sakata and Backer with Backer’s additional feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to manage a combination of a virtual queue and appointment times of variable lengths in a dynamic and adaptive manner (Backer; [0118]). By incorporating the teachings of Backer, one would’ve been able to propose a change to postpone the reservation to the slot immediately after.
Regarding claim 5: Sakata doesn’t teach:
wherein, when the reservation is unacceptable in the first time period due to a break of a staff, the proposal unit outputs a proposal of changing an end time of the break to a start time of the second time period, to the staff.
Backer teaches:
wherein, when the reservation is unacceptable in the first time period due to a break of a staff, the proposal unit outputs a proposal of changing an end time of the break to a start time of the second time period, to the staff. ([0118] if due to delays by the service provider, the 3 pm appointment is delayed to 3:30 pm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Sakata and Backer with Backer’s additional feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to manage a combination of a virtual queue and appointment times of variable lengths in a dynamic and adaptive manner (Backer; [0118]). By incorporating the teachings of Backer, one would’ve been able to propose a change to postpone the reservation to the slot immediately after.
Regarding claim 6: Sakata doesn’t teach:
wherein, when the proposal unit has made the proposal a predetermined number of times or more to the customer who has made the reservation for the first time period, the proposal unit proposes a change of the second time period.
Backer teaches:
wherein, when the proposal unit has made the proposal a predetermined number of times or more to the customer who has made the reservation for the first time period, the proposal unit proposes a change of the second time period. ([0007] The place of the user in the virtual queue can be changed based on the determined amount of time. The change of place in the virtual queue can then be communicated to the user.; [0008] In another version of the invention, in addition to determining the amount of time it will take the user to arrive for the services, also determined is a second amount of time it will take the user to be near the front of the queue. If the amount of time it will take the user to arrive for the services is greater than the amount of time it will take the user to be near the front of the queue, the user can be sent an inquiry asking if the user wants to remain in the queue. 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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Sakata and Backer with Backer’s additional feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to manage a combination of a virtual queue and appointment times of variable lengths in a dynamic and adaptive manner (Backer; [0118]). By incorporating the teachings of Backer, one would’ve been able to propose a change to postpone the reservation to the slot immediately after.
Regarding claim 7: Sakata doesn’t teach:
wherein the customer is a customer who has answered in advance that a time change is possible.
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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Sakata and Backer with Backer’s additional feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to coordinate the changes in real-time to keep the flow of traffic moving, thus maximizing throughput (Backer; [0117]). By incorporating the teachings of Backer, a customer would’ve been able to notify the system of customer-led delays in advance.
Regarding claim 8: Sakata doesn’t teach:
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 proposal unit makes the proposal.
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 proposal unit 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.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Sakata and Backer with Backer’s additional feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to coordinate the changes in real-time to keep the flow of traffic moving, thus maximizing throughput (Backer; [0117]). By incorporating the teachings of Backer, a customer would’ve been able to notify the system of customer-led delays, and the system can propose changes accordingly.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata (US 20150278716 A1, hereinafter “Sakata”) as applied in the 102 rejection of claim 9 above, in view of Backer et al. (US 20170011311 A1, hereinafter “Backer”), in further view of Lee et al. (US 20220101268 A1, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 10: Sakata doesn’t explicitly teach:
wherein the identification unit further identifies, 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 the display unit further displays the sub-start candidate time in response to an instruction of the customer.
Backer teaches:
and the display unit further displays the sub-start candidate time in response to an instruction of the customer. ([0131] At reference numeral (1202), the QMS receives a request from a user via a program on a computer or mobile individual end device (IED) having position location functionality for a desired service at a specific location. The message identifies the IED. The message can be sent in a wide variety of ways including by text, phone call, mobile app, website, etc.; [Fig. 30] 3008, 3009; [0205] If the response is that the lane is not available at the requested time at reference numeral (3008), the QMS receives a suggestion from the operator of an alternate soonest available time. At reference numeral (3009), the QMS sends a prompt to the IED with the alternate soonest available time. At reference numeral (3010), the QMS receives a response from the IED. If the response was an acceptance of the suggestion, the method proceeds to reference numeral (3006) where the user pays the required fee and enters the desired lane at the desired time. The method then ends at reference numeral (3007).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant’s invention, to combine Sakata with Backer’s feature(s) listed above. One would’ve been motivated to do so in order to instructs the user via the IED to pay the required fee (Backer; [0204]). By incorporating the teachings of Backer, one would’ve been able to display a candidate time in response to a customer request.
Backer doesn’t teach:
wherein the identification unit further identifies, 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,
Lee teaches:
wherein the identification unit further identifies, 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 Sakata and 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 min