DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Application Ser. No. 19/035,158 filed on January 21, 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are 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 .
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for domestic priority as a continuation under 35 U.S.C. 120 based on Non-Provisional Application Ser. No. 18/397,495 filed on December 27, 2023, which is a continuation of Non-Provisional Application Ser. No. 17/444,046 filed on July 29, 2021.
Drawings
Drawings were received on January 21, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 21, 2025, February 18, 2025, May 7, 2025, November 6, 2025, and March 23, 2026, respectively, is acknowledged by the Examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending (see attached PTO-1449).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 3-7, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 16 and 17 of Issued Patent US 11,909,662 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the claims cover substantially the same subject matter, i.e., reservation of resources within a dynamic workspace. The following chart provides an example of how Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to Claim 5 of the Issued Patent. Similar relationships hold for the remaining claims.
Instant Application
Issued Patent
19/033,158
US 11,909,662 B2
1. A method, comprising:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a reservation request for a workspace resource;
obtaining, by a server device from a client device of a worker, a request to check in for a workspace reservation requested by the worker;
determining that the workspace resource is available based on reservation records;
identifying, by the server device based on the request from the client device, a workspace available for the workspace reservation, the workspace including a telephone device;
accessing, by the server device, a data store storing records of worker-specific electronic device configurations to obtain a device configuration corresponding to a telephone extension specific to the worker;
pushing, from the server device without manual user intervention based on the worker checking in for the workspace reservation, the telephone extension to the telephone device to enable use of the telephone device with the telephone extension for the worker during the workspace reservation;
receiving data generated from one or more sensors corresponding to the workspace indicating the workspace has been unutilized for a threshold period of time;
determining to end the workspace reservation based on the data; and
transmitting, from the server device upon an end of the workspace reservation, instructions to remove the telephone extension from the telephone device to prepare the workspace for a next reservation for a next worker.
evaluating a blocking rule defining a workspace resource reservation limitation based on worker information associated with a worker;
5. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the workspace comprises: determining that a use of the workspace by the worker satisfies a blocking rule limiting the worker from being within a threshold range of one or more other workers.
determining whether the reservation request satisfies the blocking rule based on the worker information and separation criteria; and
processing the reservation request based on whether the blocking rule is satisfied.
Claims 1, 3-7, 14, 17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 17 and 18 of Issued Patent US 12,244,512 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the claims cover substantially the same subject matter, i.e., reservation of resources within a dynamic workspace. The following chart provides an example of how Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to Claim 6 of the Issued Patent. Similar relationships hold for the remaining claims.
Instant Application
Issued Patent
19/033,158
US 12,244,512 B2
1. A method, comprising:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a reservation request for a workspace resource;
receiving a request to check in for a workspace reservation;
determining that the workspace resource is available based on reservation records;
identifying a workspace for the workspace reservation;
pushing a device configuration to one or more devices at the workspace corresponding to the workspace reservation;
receiving data generated from one or more sensors corresponding to the workspace indicating the workspace has been unutilized for a threshold period of time;
determining to end the workspace reservation based on the data; and
transmitting instructions to remove the device configuration from the one or more devices at the workspace.
evaluating a blocking rule defining a workspace resource reservation limitation based on worker information associated with a worker;
6. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the workspace comprises: determining that a use of the workspace by a worker satisfies a blocking rule limiting the worker from being within a threshold range of one or more other workers.
determining whether the reservation request satisfies the blocking rule based on the worker information and separation criteria; and
processing the reservation request based on whether the blocking rule is satisfied.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 13, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daher et al., Pub. No. US 2017/0255880 A1, hereby “Daher”, in view of Leach et al., Pub. No. US 2022/0036258 A1, and in further view of Beloshapkova, Pub. No. US 2021/0256439 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Daher discloses “A method (Daher fig. 2B and paragraphs 5 and 35: method 200 for dynamic seating and workplace planning), comprising:
receiving a reservation request for a workspace resource (Daher figs. 1 and 2B and paragraph 41: server computing device 106 receives a request to reserve a workspace from mobile device 102);
determining that the workspace resource is available based on reservation records (Daher figs . 1 and 2B and paragraphs 28-29, 40 and 44: server computing device 106 determines that one or more workspace locations are available based on workspace reservation chart indicating workspace locations that are currently being used and reserved for future use)”.
However, while Daher discloses that the reservation request can include an identifier associated with the requesting user that is used to retrieve a profile of the requesting user that includes information relating to the user’s workspace location preferences (Daher paragraphs 41-42) and further discloses that an available workspace location is determined based in part on the preferences (Daher paragraph 44), Daher does not explicitly disclose “evaluating a blocking rule defining a workspace resource reservation limitation based on worker information associated with a worker;
determining whether the reservation request satisfies the blocking rule based on the worker information and separation criteria; and
processing the reservation request based on whether the blocking rule is satisfied.”
In the same field of endeavor, Leach discloses “evaluating a blocking rule defining a workspace resource reservation limitation... (Leach figs. 13 and paragraphs 4, 8, 113-115, 136-137 and 142: manager 101 evaluates a safety rule that prevents reservation of a workstation);
determining whether the reservation request satisfies the blocking rule based on the worker information and separation criteria (Leach figs. 13 and paragraphs 4, 8, 113-115, 136-137 and 142: manager 101 determines whether a workstation reservation request satisfies the safety rule based on whether the requested workstation maintains at least a threshold distance from another workstation that is occupied or reserved); and
processing the reservation request based on whether the blocking rule is satisfied (Leach figs. 13 and paragraphs 4, 8, 113-115, 136-137 and 142: manager 101 permits reservation of the workstation when the safety rule is satisfied, i.e., the threshold distance is maintained).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Daher to permit reservation of the workspace when a safety rule is satisfied as taught by Leach. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine permitting reservation of the workspace when a safety rule is satisfied to enable flexible workspace assignment while enforcing social distancing rules (Leach paragraphs 2 and 117).
However, while Leach suggests that a group of people, e.g. members of a ‘pod’, may be allowed to interact with one another to an extent while being isolated from members of other pods (Leach paragraph 115), the combination of Daher and Leach does not explicitly disclose “evaluating a blocking rule defining a workspace resource reservation limitation based on worker information associated with a worker (emphasis added).”
In the same field of endeavor, Beloshapkova discloses “evaluating a blocking rule defining a workspace resource reservation limitation based on worker information associated with a worker (Beloshapkova fig. 3 and paragraph 45: “Bookings of office space areas can be limited such as by departments or teams, e.g., to enforce social distancing or other separation requirements (e.g., for privacy) between designated groups.”- while not explicitly stated, the presence of worker information indicating a worker is a member of a department or team is inferred).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Daher, as modified by Leach, to permit reservation of a workspace when a separation requirement based on group membership is satisfied as taught by Beloshapkova because doing so constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (a social distancing requirement) for another (a separation requirement) to obtain predictable and desirable results (enforcement of minimum separation between members of different departments or teams). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Leach discloses “imposing a geofence defining a virtual perimeter around the workspace resource (Leach paragraph 137: the safety rule defines a circular region centered around a hazardous/occupied workstation, i.e., a geofence around a reserved/occupied workstation); and
enforcing a threshold range based on the geofence (Leach fig. 13 and paragraphs 137 and 142: the safety rule prevents reservation of another workstation within a threshold distance of the reserved/occupied workstation).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Daher to permit reservation of the workspace when a safety rule is satisfied as taught by Leach for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
Additionally, Leach discloses “detecting a device within a geofence (Leach figs. 1 and 4 and paragraphs 59, 67, 76, 82-85 and 136-137: a social distance breach is identified, e.g., by detection of beacon 402 worn by a user within a geofenced area); and
transmitting a notification indicating a violation of the blocking rule (Leach figs. 1 and 4 and paragraphs 59, 67, 76, 82-85 and 136-137: a social distance breach alert is sent to user device 107 associated with the beacon).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Daher to permit reservation of the workspace when a safety rule is satisfied as taught by Leach for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 7 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, Daher discloses “An apparatus (Daher fig. 1 and paragraphs 9, 22 and 25: server computing device 106), comprising:
a memory (Daher fig. 1 and paragraphs 22 and 25: server computing device 106); and
a processor configured to execute instructions stored in the memory... (Daher fig. 1 and paragraphs 22 and 25: server computing device 106)”.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7.
Additionally, Daher discloses “track statistical data related to workspace resource reservations and utilization (Daher paragraph 53: server computing device 106 includes functionality to generate reports including reports of which workspaces are the most or least frequently used – while not explicitly stated, tracking statistical data regarding workspace reservations and utilization is inferred);
compile the statistical data into reports indicating which resources are most frequently reserved and utilized (Daher paragraph 53: “Example reports include but are not limited to reports of average fill up times for a particular facility (or company-wide) over a given period of time, reports of the identity of employees who have used or reserved a particular workspace over a given period of time, reports of which workspaces are the most or least frequently used, and the like.”); and
provide the reports to an office administrator to analyze resource utilization (Daher paragraph 53: server computing device 106 includes functionality to generate reports including reports of which workspaces are the most or least frequently used – while not explicitly stated, providing/displaying of the report to an interested party such as an office administrator for review is inferred).”
Insofar as it recites similar claim elements, Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons presented above with respect to Claim 1.
Additionally, Daher discloses “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations... (Daher fig. 1 and paragraphs 10 and 25: a non-transitory computer readable storage device comprising instructions executable by a server computing device to perform dynamic seating and workplace planning)”.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14.
Additionally, Daher discloses “presenting a map of the workspace resource and other workspace resources (Daher figs. 2B and 3 and paragraphs 44 and 55-56: “An example of the GUI 300 is shown in FIG. 3. As shown, the GUI 300 includes a color-coded seating chart 302 in the center portion of the screen that displays individual workspaces (e.g., seats, desks, offices) in a particular facility.”);
indicating availability status of the other workspace resources on the map (Daher figs. 2B and 3 and paragraphs 44 and 55-56: “For example, a workspace that is colored red (e.g., workspace 302a) means that the workspace is already in use and cannot be reserved, a workspace that is colored purple (e.g., workspace 302b) means that the workspace is currently reserved but not yet in use, and a workspace that is colored green (e.g., workspace 302c) means that the workspace is available for use.”); and
updating the map responsive to processing the reservation request (Daher figs. 2B and 3 and paragraphs 57 and 59: “If the employee then clicks on the highlighted workspace and selects the Reserve button, the server computing device 106 automatically sets the status of that workspace to Reserved, making it unavailable for reservation by other users.”).”
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14.
Additionally, Daher discloses “verifying an identity of the worker prior to processing the reservation request (Daher paragraphs 54-55: “A user of mobile device 102 (e.g., an employee en route to work) launches a dynamic seating application installed on the mobile device 102 and provides authentication credentials ( e.g., username and password).”); and
generating a reservation record upon successful identity verification (Daher paragraphs 54-55 and 59: “After authentication, the dynamic seating advice module 106c of the server computing device 106 provides a workspace reservation chart (including all of the underlying information described above) to the mobile device 102.”).”
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14.
Additionally, Daher discloses “monitoring resource utilization to track when resources are most and least frequently reserved (Daher paragraph 53: server computing device 106 includes functionality to generate reports including reports of which workspaces are the most or least frequently used – while not explicitly stated, monitoring workspace reservations and utilization is inferred);
aggregating statistical information about resource reservation patterns (Daher paragraph 53: server computing device 106 includes functionality to generate reports including reports of which workspaces are the most or least frequently used – while not explicitly stated, aggregation of statistical data about resource reservation patterns is inferred); and
generating analytics reports indicating utilization trends for the workspace resource (Daher paragraph 53: “Example reports include but are not limited to reports of average fill up times for a particular facility (or company-wide) over a given period of time, reports of the identity of employees who have used or reserved a particular workspace over a given period of time, reports of which workspaces are the most or least frequently used, and the like.”).”
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14.
Additionally, Daher discloses “receiving sensor data from one or more sensors located within or nearby the workspace resource (Daher fig. 1 and paragraphs 8, 16, 30 and 48: employee tracking module 106a receives data indicating a workspace location is empty from one or more sensors, e.g., cameras and access devices);
monitoring usage of the workspace resource using the sensor data (Daher fig. 1 and paragraphs 8, 16, 30 and 48: employee tracking module 106a determines whether the period of time since the person left the workspace location exceeds a predetermined threshold); and
determining whether the workspace resource has gone unused based on the monitored usage (Daher fig. 1 and paragraphs 8, 16, 30 and 48: employee tracking module 106a makes the workspace location available for other users to reserve, i.e., that the workspace has gone unused, in response to determining the period of time exceeds the predetermined threshold).”
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14.
Additionally, Beloshapkova discloses “wherein the blocking rule is a policy-based rule restricting interactions between different teams or a productivity-based rule restricting interactions between workers with disruptive tendencies (Beloshapkova fig. 3 and paragraph 45: “Bookings of office space areas can be limited such as by departments or teams, e.g., to enforce social distancing or other separation requirements (e.g., for privacy) between designated groups.” - i.e., a policy-based rule restricting interactions between different teams).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the instructions stored on the computer readable medium of Daher, as modified by Leach, to permit reservation of a workspace when a separation requirement based on group membership is satisfied as taught by Beloshapkova for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova in view of Schultz et al., Pub. No. US 2018/0103375 A1, hereby “Schultz”.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1.
However, while Daher discloses that the reservation request can include an identifier associated with the requesting user that is used to retrieve a profile of the requesting user that includes information relating to the user’s workspace location preferences (Daher paragraphs 41-42), the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova does not explicitly disclose “accessing a data store storing records of worker-specific configurations;
obtaining device configurations corresponding to the worker; and
pushing the device configurations to one or more devices at the workspace resource.”
In a related field of endeavor, Schultz discloses “accessing a data store storing records of worker-specific configurations (Schultz figs. 3 and 4 and paragraphs 4, 21, 25, 31 and 44 (Schultz fig. 4 and paragraphs 4, 21, 25 and 44: “The provisioning process may include downloading configuration information to the office communication device that is specific to the particular user.” – while not explicitly stated, accessing a data store storing subscriber information is inferred);
obtaining device configurations corresponding to the worker (Schultz fig. 4 and paragraphs 4, 21, 25 and 44: “The provisioning process may include downloading configuration information to the office communication device that is specific to the particular user.” – while not explicitly stated, retrieval of configuration information associated with the particular user requesting affiliation with the workspace is inferred); and
pushing the device configurations to one or more devices at the workspace resource (Schultz fig. 4 and paragraphs 4, 21, 25 and 44: “The provisioning process may include downloading configuration information to the office communication device that is specific to the particular user.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Daher, as modified by Leach and Beloshapkova to download configuration information associated with the user to devices at the reserved workspace location as taught by Schultz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine downloading configuration information associated with the user to devices at the reserved workspace location to relieve the user from manually configuring devices at the reserved workspace location (Schultz paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Daher, Leach, Beloshapkova and Schultz discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4.
Additionally, Schultz discloses “wherein the device configurations include at least one of a telephone extension, digital signage content, or computing device settings (Schultz fig. 4 and paragraphs 21 and 25: “For example, when device 227 includes a telephone, device 227 may be provisioned to include the telephone number and a call history log associated with the user.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Daher, as modified by Leach and Beloshapkova to download configuration information associated with the user to devices at the reserved workspace location as taught by Schultz for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Daher, Leach, Beloshapkova and Schultz discloses all of the limitations of Claim 4.
Additionally, Daher discloses “receiving data from one or more sensors indicating the workspace resource is unutilized (Daher fig. 1 and paragraphs 8, 16, 30 and 48: employee tracking module 106a receives data indicating a workspace location is empty from one or more sensors, e.g., cameras and access devices);
determining the workspace resource is unutilized for a threshold period (Daher fig. 1 and paragraphs 8, 16, 30 and 48: employee tracking module 106a determines whether the period of time since the person left the workspace location exceeds a predetermined threshold)”.
However, while Daher discloses that the workspace location is made available for other users to reserve in response to determining the period of time since the employee left the workspace location exceeds the predetermined threshold (Daher fig. 1 and paragraphs 8, 16, 30 and 48), the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova does not explicitly disclose “removing the device configurations from the one or more devices.”
In a related field of endeavor, Schultz discloses “removing the device configurations from the one or more devices (Schultz paragraphs 54-55: “In this situation, devices 227, associated with workspace 225, may be disaffiliated such that information pertaining to the user of workspace 225 may be erased from memory of devices 227.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the method of Daher, as modified by Leach and Beloshapkova to download configuration information associated with the user to devices at the reserved workspace location as taught by Schultz for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claims 8-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova in view of Vashisht et al., Pub. No. US 2022/0053036 A1, hereby “Vashisht”.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7.
Additionally, Daher discloses “transmit a notification to the another worker indicating a future presence of the worker (Daher paragraph 52: “In some embodiments, the modules 106a-106c also transmit notification messages, alerts and related seating advice to the employee's manager(s) or any other person(s) that the employee may designate as people to be notified of the employee's seating status.”).”
However, while Daher discloses notifying other persons designated by the user of the user’s seating status, i.e., reservation of a workstation location (Daher paragraph 52), the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova does not explicitly disclose “analyze communication records associated with the worker;
determine an engagement between the worker and another worker based on the communication records”.
In the same field of endeavor, Vashisht discloses “analyze communication records associated with the worker (Vashisht figs. 1 and 2 and paragraphs 18-20 and 27-35: “Specifically, the reservation service 130 may analyze the user's recent collaboration history to derive collaboration data related to, e.g., the user's chatting, calling, messaging, conferencing, content sharing, and other communication history stored on the collaboration service 160 platform.”);
determine an engagement between the worker and another worker based on the communication records (Vashisht figs. 1 and 2 and paragraphs 18-20 and 27-35: “The reservation service 130 may use this collaboration data to determine one or more collaborators who have been engaged in enhanced communications with the user 105 over a predetermined recent period of time, e.g., over the last seven days, over the last two weeks, or over another predetermined period of time.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the apparatus of Daher to determine one or more other employees who have been engaged in enhanced communication with the user over a predetermined period of time based on the user’s communication history as taught by Vashisht because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (determining one or more close collaborators based on communication history) to known devices and/or methods (a server computing system implementing dynamic seating and workspace planning) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (determination of other employees to notify of the user’s workspace location reservation based on communication history of the user). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Daher, Leach, Beloshapkova and Vashisht discloses all of the limitations of Claim 8.
Additionally, Vashisht discloses “use a learning model to analyze at least one of conference transcripts, call transcripts, chat messages, or emails (Vashisht figs. 1 and 2 and paragraphs 18-20 and 27-35: “An algorithm or other mechanism of quantitative analysis may be applied to the weighted communication factors (so that the reservation service 130 may evaluate and weigh each factor individually and/or the set of factors collectively) to determine one or more collaborators who have been engaged in enhanced communications with the user 105.” – while not explicitly stated, use of a learning algorithm or model is inferred).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the apparatus of Daher to determine one or more other employees who have been engaged in enhanced communication with the user over a predetermined period of time based on the user’s communication history as taught by Vashisht for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Daher, Leach, Beloshapkova and Vashisht discloses all of the limitations of Claim 8.
Additionally, Vashisht discloses “determine a suggested workspace resource for the another worker within a threshold range of the workspace resource (Vashisht figs. 1 and 2 and paragraphs 18-20, 24 and 34-36: “By algorithmically analyzing the user information in this manner, the reservation service may determine and provide one or more workspace suggestions to the user device 110 for selection by the user 105.”); and
generate a reservation record for the suggested workspace resource (Vashisht figs. 1 and 2 and paragraphs 18-20, 24 and 34-36: “The user 105 may view the one or more workspace suggestions and then select a desired workspace. The user's 105 selection may be transmitted to the reservation service 130, and the reservation service 130 may then reserve the workspace in accordance with the user's workspace selection.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the apparatus of Daher to determine one or more other employees who have been engaged in enhanced communication with the user over a predetermined period of time based on the user’s communication history as taught by Vashisht for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14.
However, while Beloshapkova discloses separation requirements that limit booking of office space areas based on an employee’s department or team (Beloshapkova paragraph 45), the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova does not explicitly disclose “accessing organization chart data, worker profile data, or human resources records; and
determining reservation limitations based on team affiliations or worker relationships.”
In the same field of endeavor, Vashisht discloses “accessing organization chart data, worker profile data, or human resources records (Vashisht fig. 1 and paragraph 32: “The reservation service 130 may also derive dynamic user information from a directory service 140, wherein the user information comprises directory data associated with the organizational information of the user 105.”); and
determining reservation limitations based on team affiliations or worker relationships (Vashisht fig. 1 and paragraph 32: “Workspace suggestions based on directory data may include, but are not limited to, workspaces that are in proximity to one or more team members of the user 105, or in proximity to one or more locations associated with the user's team.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the instructions stored on the computer readable medium of Daher, as modified by Leach and Beloshapkova, to determine the separation requirements based on organizational information of the user derived from a directory service as taught by Vashisht because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (deriving organizational information of the user from a directory service) to known devices and/or methods (a server computing system implementing dynamic seating and workspace planning) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (enforcement of separation rules based on department or team of the user). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova in view of Bowne et al., Pub. No. US 2005/0273372 A1, hereby “Bowne”.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7.
However, while Daher discloses determining an available workspace location based on a workspace reservation chart indicating workspace locations that are currently being used as well as workspace locations that are reserved for future use (Daher paragraphs 28-29, 40 and 44), the combination of Daher, Leach and Beloshapkova does not explicitly disclose “maintain a waitlist for the workspace resource;
receive a request to join the waitlist from another worker; and
add the another worker to the waitlist.”
In the same field of endeavor, Bowne discloses “maintain a waitlist for the workspace resource (Bowne fig. 2 and paragraphs 24 and 27: “Further, it is preferable that the reservations function 212B provide an ‘on-call’ function, whereby if a meeting room (or group of rooms) is unavailable at a desired time, the meeting organizer can opt to be placed on a reservation ‘waiting list’ for the room (or any of a group of rooms).”);
receive a request to join the waitlist from another worker (Bowne fig. 2 and paragraphs 24 and 27: “Further, it is preferable that the reservations function 212B provide an ‘on-call’ function, whereby if a meeting room (or group of rooms) is unavailable at a desired time, the meeting organizer can opt to be placed on a reservation ‘waiting list’ for the room (or any of a group of rooms).”); and
add the another worker to the waitlist Bowne fig. 2 and paragraphs 24 and 27: “Further, it is preferable that the reservations function 212B provide an ‘on-call’ function, whereby if a meeting room (or group of rooms) is unavailable at a desired time, the meeting organizer can opt to be placed on a reservation ‘waiting list’ for the room (or any of a group of rooms).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the apparatus of Daher to maintain a reservation waiting list for each of the workspace locations as taught by Bowne because doing so constitutes applying a known technique (maintaining a reservation waiting list for a meeting room) to known devices and/or methods (a server computing system implementing dynamic seating and workspace planning) ready for improvement to yield predictable and desirable results (automatically reserving a workspace location for another employee should a prior reservation be cancelled). See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Daher, Leach, Beloshapkova and Bowne discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11.
Additionally, Bowne discloses “determine an end of a current reservation for the workspace resource (Bowne paragraph 27: “If a prior reservation for a room is cancelled, then if there is a waiting list for the room, the reservation function can notify the next in line for the room that it has become available, and make a tentative reservation for the room subject to the meeting organizer's approval.”);
identify a next worker on the waitlist (Bowne paragraph 27: “If a prior reservation for a room is cancelled, then if there is a waiting list for the room, the reservation function can notify the next in line for the room that it has become available, and make a tentative reservation for the room subject to the meeting organizer's approval.”); and
transmit a notification of availability to the next worker (Bowne paragraph 27: “If a prior reservation for a room is cancelled, then if there is a waiting list for the room, the reservation function can notify the next in line for the room that it has become available, and make a tentative reservation for the room subject to the meeting organizer's approval.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the apparatus of Daher to maintain a reservation waiting list for each of the workspace locations as taught by Bowne for the reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Vivadelli et al., Pub. No. US 2014/028594 A1, discloses a system and method for facilitating workspace utilization and occupancy management wherein a user may placed on a waitlist in response to requesting reservation of a resource that is unavailable;
Segal et al., Pub. No. US 2015/0039357 A1, discloses a system and method for on demand business resource management wherein a workspace that satisfies a reservation request may be identified based in part on proximity of the workspace to spaces reserved by other users with compatible business profiles;
O’Keefe-Sally et al., Pub. No. US 2019/0228348 A1, discloses a system and method for facilitating reservations of shared desks, phone booths, and other spaces or areas wherein a workspace selection is made based on proximity to friends or colleagues;
Bacon et al., Pub. No. US 2021/0311600 A1, discloses a seating selection application that enable seat selection while enforcing compliance with social distancing requirements.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. An extension of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). However, in no event, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C MCBETH whose telephone number is (571)270-0495. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00AM - 4:30PM 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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. 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.
/WILLIAM C MCBETH/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights