DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 6/22/2026.
Claims 1, 12-14, 17, and 20 have been amended and claim 20 has been added new.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
The previously pending 112f interpretation and corresponding rejections have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s claim amendments specifically amending in the structural components.
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 103 and 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-20, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are not directed toward an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant’s claims are determining presence of humans at a location and making determinations based on the human interactions, which is managing/analyzing how humans interact. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants claims recite a general-purpose computer using generic machine learning for implementing the abstract idea, which merely adds the words apply with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). Use of additional information (e.g. feedback) narrows the abstract idea as generic use of feedback with machine learning is still recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims recite significantly more. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements. Applicants claims again only recite a general-purpose computer using generic machine learning for implementing the abstract idea, which merely adds the words apply with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05). Use of additional information (e.g. feedback) narrows the abstract idea as generic use of feedback with machine learning is still recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-20, Applicant argues that the claims are allowable over 35 USC 103 because the claim amendments overcome the current art rejection. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the updated rejection below since amendments by Applicant require additional reference to the Examiner’s art rejection.
The Examiner notes that the independent claims state “selecting one or more secondary hosts based on predefined criteria, if the one or more primary hosts are not present in the premises determined by the access log”, where the Examiner can interpret that the primary host is always present. The Examiner recommends removing the alternative claim language, which would overcome the Ma et al. reference. Additional prior art has been applied to cover the limitations when not recited in alternative format.
The Examiner notes that Chen et al. further teach selecting one or more secondary hosts based on predefined criteria, if the one or more primary hosts are not present in the premises determined by the access log; notifying the presence of the one or more visitors to the selected one or more secondary hosts; storing an identification of the selected one or more secondary hosts; recording outcome feedback corresponding to the selection of the one or more secondary hosts, wherein the outcome feedback indicates an experience of the one or more visitors with the selected one or more secondary hosts (See Figure 1, Figure 2, Paragraph 0043, Paragraph 0054, Paragraph 0075, Paragraph 0076, Paragraph 0082, Paragraph 0084, Paragraph 0108, and the Examiner interprets the limitation is not recited in alternative format for applying additional prior art purposes only). The Examiner interprets Chen et al. to be determining availability/presence of employees (e.g. hosts) at a location, detecting a visitor at that location, if the first employee (e.g. primary host) is not available the system will allocate a secondary employee (e.g. secondary host) to assist the visitor who is available/present at the location.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1-11 are directed toward a process, claims 20 are directed toward a product, and claims 12-19 are directed toward a system; which are statutory categories of invention.
Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a method for automatically allocating one or more hosts for one or more visitors, comprising the steps of: receiving, at a visitor management system, a registration input from the one or more visitors; querying an access database to retrieve information regarding one or more primary hosts associated with the one or more visitors; based on the retrieved host information, determining the presence of the one or more primary hosts within a premises by retrieving an access log of the one or more primary hosts; selecting one or more secondary hosts based on predefined criteria, if the one or more primary hosts are not present in the premises determined by the access log; notifying the presence of the one or more visitors to the selected one or more secondary hosts; storing an identification of the selected one or more secondary hosts; recording outcome feedback corresponding to the selection of the one or more secondary hosts, wherein the outcome feedback indicates an experience of the one or more visitors with the selected one or more secondary hosts; and training a machine learning (ML) model using the registration input, the retrieved primary host information, and the stored secondary hosts’ identification, and the recorded outcome feedback to dynamically refine the selection of one or more secondary hosts in subsequent allocations of the one or more hosts for the one or more visitors (claims 1, 12, and 20) (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are recording and monitoring visitors who visit locations and assigning hosts (e.g. humans) based on certain criteria and storing the information to train a machine learning model for better allocation of the hosts to visitors, which is managing how humans interact for commercial purposes.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims, where any additional elements introduced are discussed below.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the independent claims additionally recite “a visitor management system; an access database; training a machine learning (ML) model (claim 1); a visitor management system; a memory configured to store computer-readable instructions; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to; an access database; train a machine learning (ML) model (claim 12); non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute; a visitor management system; an access database; training a machine learning (ML) model (claim 20)”, which are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106) and are recited at such a high level of generality. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computer or other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology.
The recited “training a machine learning model” in the independent claims is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106).
In addition, dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 further narrow the abstract idea and dependent claims 3, 6, 10-11, 14, and 18-19 additionally recite “a building management system (BMS) (claims 3 and 14); a conference room (claims 3 and 14); the access database linked to the BMS (claims 3 and 14); email, SMS, or a mobile application (claim 6); the ML model is configured to (claims 10 and 18); an access control system (claims 11 and 19)” which do not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the claimed structure merely adds the words to apply it with the judicial exception and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, method; System; and Product Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 recite “a visitor management system; an access database; training a machine learning (ML) model (claim 1); a visitor management system; a memory configured to store computer-readable instructions; and a processor communicatively coupled to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to; an access database; train a machine learning (ML) model (claim 12); non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-readable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to execute; a visitor management system; an access database; training a machine learning (ML) model (claim 20)”; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0124-0126 and Figures 4. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2-11 and 13-19 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. Similarly, claims 3, 6, 10-11, 14, and 18-19 additionally recite “a building management system (BMS) (claims 3 and 14); a conference room (claims 3 and 14); the access database linked to the BMS (claims 3 and 14); email, SMS, or a mobile application (claim 6); the ML model is configured to (claims 10 and 18); an access control system (claims 11 and 19)” which do not account for additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed structure merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and does not move beyond a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106). The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US 2020/0233389 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2023/0178228 A1).
Regarding Claim 1: Ma et al. teach a method for automatically allocating one or more hosts for one or more visitors, comprising the steps of (See Figure 1A, Figure 5, and Paragraph 0105):
receiving, at a visitor management system, a registration input from the one or more visitors (See Paragraph 0019 – “The registration request may be associated with a visitor to visit a building at a scheduled time” and Paragraph 0105 – “the visitor management system 1102 receives a registration request”);
querying an access database to retrieve information regarding one or more primary hosts associated with the one or more visitors (See Figure 1A, Figure 4, Paragraph 0074 – “The visitor client device 1116 (and employee client device 1114) may include a digital wallet”, Paragraph 0078 – “The employee may provide such visit information to on their employee client device 1114 upon generating the registration request”, Paragraph 0081 – “Each agent may together form a network to intelligently identify and populate at least some information in the fillable registration form without the visitor's intervention or input (e.g., based on the information in the registration request, based on the data corresponding to the employee's calendar/schedule”, Paragraph 0121, and Paragraph 0122 – “comparing the contact information to an employee database”);
based on the retrieved host information, determining the presence of the one or more primary hosts within a premises by retrieving an access log of the one or more primary hosts (See Paragraph 0042, Paragraph 0064, and Paragraph 0065 – “the surveillance component(s) 1110 may include device scanners configured to detect a presence, proximity, or location of a client device associated with persons in the building 10 (or on the premises of the building, spaces within the building 10, etc.)”);
selecting one or more secondary hosts based on predefined criteria, if the one or more primary hosts are not present in the premises determined by the access log; notifying the presence of the one or more visitors to the selected one or more secondary hosts; storing an identification of the selected one or more secondary hosts (See Figures 3A-3B, Paragraph 0048 – “An entity graph may include nodes and edges, where each node of the entity graph represents an entity and each edge is directed (e.g., from a first node to a second node) and represents a relationship between entities (e.g., indicates that the entity represented by the first node has a particular relationship with the entity represented by the second node)”, Paragraph 0121 – “the visitor management system 1102 may automatically generate a notification which is transmitted to the employee client device”, and the Examiner interprets that the primary host is present);
and training a machine learning (ML) model using the registration input, the retrieved primary host information, and the stored secondary hosts’ identification, and the recorded outcome feedback to dynamically refine the selection of one or more secondary hosts in subsequent allocations of the one or more hosts for the one or more visitors (See Paragraph 0021, Paragraph 0038, Paragraph 0051, Paragraph 0053, and Paragraph 0134).
Ma et al. do not specifically disclose selecting one or more secondary hosts based on predefined criteria; notifying the presence of the one or more visitors to the selected one or more secondary hosts; storing an identification of the selected one or more secondary hosts; recording outcome feedback corresponding to the selection of the one or more secondary hosts, wherein the outcome feedback indicates an experience of the one or more visitors with the selected one or more secondary hosts. However, Chen et al. further teach selecting one or more secondary hosts based on predefined criteria, if the one or more primary hosts are not present in the premises determined by the access log; notifying the presence of the one or more visitors to the selected one or more secondary hosts; storing an identification of the selected one or more secondary hosts; recording outcome feedback corresponding to the selection of the one or more secondary hosts, wherein the outcome feedback indicates an experience of the one or more visitors with the selected one or more secondary hosts (See Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Paragraph 0043, Paragraph 0054, Paragraph 0075, Paragraph 0076, Paragraph 0081, Paragraph 0082, Paragraph 0084, Paragraph 0108, Paragraph 0152, and the Examiner interprets the limitation is not recited in alternative format for applying additional prior art purposes only).
The teachings of Ma et al. and Chen et al. are related because both are monitoring presence of humans to make determinations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the visitor management system of Ma et al. to incorporate the secondary host notification of Chen et al. in order to ensure that visitors are dealt with accordingly and efficiently.
Regarding Claim 2: Ma et al. in view of Chen et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Ma et al. further teach wherein receiving the registration input from the one or more visitors comprises receiving personal information regarding the one or more visitors (See Paragraph 0019 – “The registration request may be associated with a visitor to visit a building at a scheduled time … The visitor management system may receive, based on inputs to the registration form, visitor information” and Paragraph 0105 – “the visitor management system 1102 receives a registration request”).
Regarding Claim 3: Ma et al. in view of Chen et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Ma et al. further teach: querying a building management system (BMS) to identify and select a conference room to accommodate the one or more visitors; verifying the selected conference room’s availability by querying the access database linked to the BMS; and automatically selecting an alternative room if the initially selected conference room is occupied (See Figure 1A, Figure 4, Paragraph 0045 – “a conference room may update its status by looking at occupancy sensors or an electronic calendar (e.g., to turn its status “available” if there is no show, etc.)”, Paragraph 0054 – “current status of a room is (e.g., occupied or unoccupied)”, and Paragraph 0126).
Regarding Claim 4: Ma et al. in view of Chen et al. teach the limitations of claim 3. Ma et al. further teach wherein the conference room is selected based on criteria including suitable room size, equipment availability, and proximity to the one or more visitors’ location within the premises (See Figure 1A, Figures 3A-3B, Figure 4, Paragraph 0021, Paragraph 0045 – “a conference room may update its status by looking at occupancy sensors or an electronic calendar (e.g., to turn its status “available” if there is no show, etc.)”, Paragraph 0054 – “current status of a room is (e.g., occupied or unoccupied)”, and Paragraph 0126).
Regarding Claim 5: Ma et al. in view of Chen et al. teach the limitations of claim 3. Ma et al. further teach prioritizing the conference room selection based on real-time occupancy data received from the BMS (See Figure 1A, Figures 3A-3B, Figure 4, Paragraph 0021, Paragraph 0045 – “a conference room may update its status by looking at occupancy sensors or an electronic calendar (e.g., to turn its status “available” if there is no show, etc.)”, Paragraph 0054 – “current status of a room is (e.g., occupied or unoccupied)”, and Paragraph 0126).
Regarding Claim 6: Ma et al. in view of Chen et al. teach the limitations of claim 3. Ma et al. further teach notifying the one or more visitors and the allocated one or more primary hosts of the selected conference room via one or more communication channels including email, SMS, or a mobile application (See Figure 1A, Figures 3A-3B, Figure 4, Paragraph 0021, Paragraph 0045 – “a conference room may update its status by looking at occupancy sensors or an electronic calendar (e.g., to turn its status “available” if there is no show, etc.)”, Paragraph 0054 – “current status of a room is (e.g., occupied or unoccupied)”, Paragraph 0072, Paragraph 0121 – “the visitor management system 1102 may automatically generate a notification which is transmitted to the employee client device”, and Paragraph 0126).
Regarding Claim 7: Ma et al. in view of Chen et al. teach the limitations of claim 3. Ma et al. further teach automatically rescheduling the allocated conference room in response to changes in the number of the one or more visitors or room unavailability (See Paragraph 0038 – “generate actions in real-time based on received input”, Paragraph 0045 – “a conference room may update its status by looking at occupancy sensors or an electronic calendar (e.g., to turn its status “available” if there is no show, etc.)”, Paragraph 0054 – “current status of a room is (e.g., occupied or unoccupied)”, and Paragraph 0121).
Regarding Claim 8: Ma et al. in view of Chen et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Ma et al. further teach wherein the information regarding the one or more primary hosts used for querying the access database is an email ID associated with the one or more primary hosts (See Paragraph 0057, Paragraph 0072, and Paragraph 0074).
Regarding Claim 9: Ma et al. in view of Chen et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Ma et al. further teach wherein the one or more secondary hosts are selected based on the predefined criteria including previous interactions with the one or more primary hosts and/or the one or more visitors and hierarchy of the one or more secondary hosts in a department of the one or more primary hosts (See Figures 3A-3B, Paragraph 0048 – “An entity graph may include nodes and edges, where each node of the entity graph represents an entity and each edge is directed (e.g., from a first node to a second node) and represents a relationship between entities (e.g., indicates that the entity represented by the first node has a particular relationship with the entity represented by the second node)”, Paragraph 0121 – “the visitor management system 1102 may automatically generate a notification which is transmitted to the employee client device”, and the Examiner interprets that the primary host is present).
Regarding Claim 10: Ma et al. in view of Chen et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Ma et al. further teach wherein the ML model is configured to automatically allocate the one or more primary hosts based on historical data and further configured to update the allocation of the one or more primary hosts’ preferences based on patterns of host availability and visitor interactions (See Figures 3A-3B, Paragraph 0021, Paragraph 0038, Paragraph 0045, Paragraph 0048, Paragraph 0051, and Paragraph 0053).
Regarding Claim 11: Ma et al. in view of Chen et al. teach the limitations of claim 1. Ma et al. further teach wherein the visitor management system integrates with an access control system to track real-time location of the one or more primary hosts and the one or more secondary hosts within the premises (See Figure 1A, Figure 4, Paragraph 0045 – “a conference room may update its status by looking at occupancy sensors or an electronic calendar (e.g., to turn its status “available” if there is no show, etc.)”, Paragraph 0054 – “current status of a room is (e.g., occupied or unoccupied)”, and Paragraph 0126).
Regarding Claims 12-20: Claims 12-20 recite limitations already addressed by the rejections of claims 1-11 above; therefore the same rejections apply.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights