DETAILED ACTION
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 the Claims
Claims 1-5 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated October 21, 2025. In the Response, submitted on January 15, 2026, claims 1, and 3-5 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-5 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 7-8 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 8-10 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
On Pages 8-9 of the Response, Applicant argues “independent claims 1 and 5 now affirmatively recite not only in response to the second request being transmitted, make a provisional reservation for the first and second seats; change the provisional reservation for the first and second seats in response to the acceptance of the second user; and repeatedly execute a search process to identify the at least two of the third users who satisfy the use route of the first user while a number of the third users is increased one by one, but also determine a movement burden score of each of a plurality of combinations by taking into account individual scores of a plurality of factors related to a burden of movement of the first user between the first seat and the second seat, at least one of the plurality of factors is a number of movements between the passenger vehicle and another passenger vehicle which occur in response to movement between the first seat and the second seat; and transmit the second request in order in response to and in accordance with a combination having a lowest movement burden score. Such features do not reasonably constitute certain methods of organizing human activity, such as commercial or legal interactions, as asserted by the Office Action at p. 4, which is an overgeneralization of the claims.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the above cited portions of the claims reflect the abstract idea. As Para. [0002] of Applicant’s specification explains “The present disclosure relates to a seat reservation system and a seat reservation method for managing seat reservations of a passenger vehicle”. Therefore, in light of the specification, the above cited portions of the claims (e.g., make a provisional reservation…; change the provisional reservation…in response to the acceptance of the second user; and repeatedly execute a search process to identify the at least two of the third users who satisfy the use route…, but also determine a movement burden score of each of a plurality of combinations …; and transmit the second request in order in response to and in accordance with a combination having a lowest movement burden score) recite a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., commercial or legal interaction).
On Pages 9-10 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Moreover, amended independent claims 1 and 5 recite more than just using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (Office Action at p. 4). Rather, these claims have been amended to specifically recite patent-eligible details by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea by reciting not only in response to the second request being transmitted, make a provisional reservation for the first and second seats; change the provisional reservation for the first and second seats in response to the acceptance of the second user; and repeatedly execute a search process to identify the at least two of the third users who satisfy the use route of the first user while a number of the third users is increased one by one, but also determine a movement burden score of each of a plurality of combinations by taking into account individual scores of a plurality of factors related to a burden of movement of the first user between the first seat and the second seat, at least one of the plurality of factors is a number of movements between the passenger vehicle and another passenger vehicle which occur in response to movement between the first seat and the second seat; and transmit the second request in order in response to and in accordance with a combination having a lowest movement burden score. Because the processing circuitry is configured to determine a movement burden score of each of a plurality of combinations by taking into account individual scores of a plurality of factors related to a burden of movement of the first user between the first seat and the second seat, at least one of the plurality of factors is a number of movements between the passenger vehicle and another passenger vehicle which occur in response to movement between the first seat and the second seat, meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea are recited in independent claims 1 and 5 so that the claim cannot be interpreted as failing to integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application since the processing circuitry is configured to transmit the second request in order in response to and in accordance with a combination having a lowest movement burden score.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes similar to the discussion above, the limitations of “reciting not only in response to the second request being transmitted, make a provisional reservation for the first and second seats; change the provisional reservation for the first and second seats in response to the acceptance of the second user; and repeatedly execute a search process to identify the at least two of the third users who satisfy the use route of the first user while a number of the third users is increased one by one, but also determine a movement burden score of each of a plurality of combinations by taking into account individual scores of a plurality of factors related to a burden of movement of the first user between the first seat and the second seat, at least one of the plurality of factors is a number of movements between the passenger vehicle and another passenger vehicle which occur in response to movement between the first seat and the second seat; and transmit the second request in order in response to and in accordance with a combination having a lowest movement burden score” are limitations that recite the abstract idea. The recitation of a processing circuity to perform the abstract idea limitations (“the processing circuitry is configured to transmit the second request in order in response to and in accordance with a combination having a lowest movement burden score”) does not recite a practical application. Rather, the high-level recitation of the processing circuitry to perform the abstract idea amounts to merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”.
On Page 10 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Still further, when the claims are viewed as an ordered combination and as a whole, they recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. In particular, the recitation of processing circuitry configured to: in response to the second request being transmitted, make a provisional reservation for the first and second seats; change the provisional reservation for the first and second seats in response to the acceptance of the second user; repeatedly execute a search process to identify the at least two of the third users who satisfy the use route of the first user while a number of the third users is increased one by one; determine a movement burden score of each of a plurality of combinations by taking into account individual scores of a plurality of factors related to a burden of movement of the first user between the first seat and the second seat, at least one of the plurality of factors is a number of movements between the passenger vehicle and another passenger vehicle which occur in response to movement between the first seat and the second seat; and transmit the second request in order in response to and in accordance with a combination having a lowest movement burden score amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. This is because the combination of these additional claim elements, when viewed in its entirety with the rest of the claimed elements, do not constitute well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons discussed above in regard to the practical application argument. Furthermore, as will be reiterated in the rejection below, none of the claimed additional elements were indicated as performing well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. Rather, the additional elements ((i) one or more memory devices; and processing circuitry (claim 1); and (ii) user devices (claims 1 and 5) merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented, by merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (and similarly claim 5) recites “transmit the second request in order in response to and in accordance with a combination having a lowest movement burden score” in the second to last limitation. It is unclear what is meant by “in order in response to” and what is being combined such that there is “a combination having a lowest movement burden score”, of which the second request is transmitted “in order in response to”. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “transmit the second request in order of, in response to and in accordance with a combination of the plurality of combinations having a lowest movement burden score”. Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
35 U.S.C. 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4 are directed to a system comprising processing circuitry (i.e., a machine), and claim 5 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-5 all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recite a series of steps/functions of: storing seat reservation information indicating a seat reservation status of each users for individual sections traveled by a target passenger vehicle in which a first user desires to board, and use route information indicating a use route that is of each of users including a first user and includes a plurality of sections traveled by the target passenger vehicle; and executing a seat management process based on the seat reservation information and the use route information, by: when there is no vacant seat common throughout the use route of the first user, transmit to a second user who has reserved a same seat throughout one or more sections same as those of an entire use route of the first user, a first request for reservation transfer of the same seat to the first user; when an acceptance of the second user for the first request is not received within a designated time, transmitting to at least two of third users who satisfy the use route of the first user when one or more sections reserved by each of .the at least two of the third users are combined, a second request for reservation transfer of first and second seats of the at least two of the third users to the first user; and in response to the second request being transmitted, make a provisional reservation for the first and second seats; change the provisional reservation for the first and second seats in response to the acceptance of the second user; repeatedly execute a search process to identify the at least two of the third users who satisfy the use route of the first user while a number of the third users is increased one by one: determine a movement burden score of each of a plurality of combinations by taking into account individual scores of a plurality of factors related to a burden of movement of the first user between the first seat and the second seat, at least one of the plurality of factors is a number of movements between the passenger vehicle and another passenger vehicle which occur in response to movement between the first seat and the second seat; transmit the second request in order in response to and in accordance with a combination having a lowest movement burden score; and when an acceptance of each of the at least of the two third users for the second request is received within a designated time, change a reservation holder of the first and second seats of the at least two of the third users to the first user.
Claim 5 recites the steps of: executing a seat management process based on seat reservation information indicating a seat reservation status of each users for individual sections traveled by a target passenger vehicle in which a first user desires to board, and use route information indicating a use route that is of each of users including a first user and includes a plurality of sections traveled by the target passenger vehicle, wherein the seat management process includes: when there is no vacant seat common throughout the use route of the first user, transmitting to a user device of a second user who has reserved a same seat throughout one or more sections same as those of an entire use route of the first user, a first request for reservation transfer of the same seat to the first user; in response to an acceptance of the second user for the first request not being received within a designated time, transmitting to at least two of third users who satisfy the use route of the first user when one or more sections reserved by each of the at least two of the third users are combined, a second request for reservation transfer of first and second seats of the at least two of the third users to the first user; in response to the second request being transmitted, making a provisional reservation for the first and second seats; changing the provisional reservation for the first and second seats in response to the acceptance of the second user; repeatedly execute a search process to identify the at least two of the third users who satisfy the use route of the first user while a number of the third users is increased one by one; determine a movement burden score of each of a plurality of combinations by taking into account individual scores of a plurality of factors related to a burden of movement of the first user between the first seat and the second seat, at least one of the plurality of factors is a number of movements between the passenger vehicle and another passenger vehicle which occur in response to movement between the first seat and the second seat; transmitting the second request in order in response to and in accordance with a combination having a lowest movement burden score; and in response to an acceptance of each of the at least two of the third users for the second request being received within a designated time, changing a reservation holder of the first and second seats of the at least two of the third users to the first user.
The claims as a whole recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial or legal interactions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 5 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”.
The claims recite the additional elements of: (i) one or more memory devices; and processing circuitry (claim 1); and (ii) user devices (claims 1 and 5).
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements listed above merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements listed above do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (See Fig. 1), nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-4 further recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claim 1 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2-4 are also ineligible.
Allowable over the Prior Art
Claims 1-5 are allowable over the prior art, but are subject to the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101. Specifically, the prior art does not teach, in combination with the other claim limitations, “when an acceptance of the second user for the first request is not received within a designated time, transmit to respective user devices of at least two of third users who satisfy the use route of the first user when one or more sections reserved by each of the at least two of the third users are combined, a second request for reservation transfer of first and second seats of the at least two of the third users to the first user; in response to the second request being transmitted, make a provisional reservation for the first and second seats; change the provisional reservation for the first and second seats in response to the acceptance of the second user; repeatedly execute a search process to identify the at least two of the third users who satisfy the use route of the first user while a number of the third users is increased one by one; determine a movement burden score of each of a plurality of combinations by taking into account individual scores of a plurality of factors related to a burden of movement of the first user between the first seat and the second seat, at least one of the plurality of factors is a number of movements between the passenger vehicle and another passenger vehicle which occur in response to movement between the first seat and the second seat; transmit the second request in order in response to and in accordance with a combination having a lowest movement burden score; and when an acceptance of each of the at least of the two third users for the second request is received within a designated time, change a reservation holder of the first and second seats of the at least two of the third users to the first user” as recited in claim 1. The prior art does not teach, in combination with the other claim limitations, “in response to an acceptance of the second user for the first request not being received within a designated time, transmitting to respective user devices of at least two of third users who satisfy the use route of the first user when one or more sections reserved by each of the at least two of the third users are combined, a second request for reservation transfer of first and second seats of the at least two of the third users to the first user; in response to the second request being transmitted, making a provisional reservation for the first and second seats; changing the provisional reservation for the first and second seats in response to the acceptance of the second user; repeatedly execute a search process to identify the at least two of the third users who satisfy the use route of the first user while a number of the third users is increased one by one; determine a movement burden score of each of a plurality of combinations by taking into account individual scores of a plurality of factors related to a burden of movement of the first user between the first seat and the second seat, at least one of the plurality of factors is a number of movements between the passenger vehicle and another passenger vehicle which occur in response to movement between the first seat and the second seat; transmitting the second request in order in response to and in accordance with a combination having a lowest movement burden score; and in response to an acceptance of each of the at least two of the third users for the second request being received within a designated time, changing a reservation holder of the first and second seats of the at least two of the third users to the first user” as recited in claim 5.
The closest prior art for claims 1 and 5 includes:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0154571 to Zamer (hereinafter “Zamer”). Zamer discloses a ticket seller system that offers reselling tickets for users who might miss an event and otherwise lose all of their ticket value.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0321839 to Naoi et al. (hereinafter “Naoi”). Naoi discloses detecting a train resale candidate seat by comparing the vacancy probability with a threshold value, and a touch panel monitor that displays resale candidate seat information indicating the resale candidate seat that has been detected by the processing server.
“Trainpal now allows customers to resell their tickets” by James H., dated August 14, 2022 (hereinafter “Trainpal”). Trainpal discloses Resell Tickets, where you can sell your unwanted tickets to other travelers.
“Railboard vs Trainline vs TrainPal: who sells the cheapest split train tickets?”, dated September 2023 (hereinafter “Railboard”). Railboard disclose splitting regular train tickets at calling points along the journey. So instead of one ticket from A to C, you have two tickets from A to B and B to C. However, you stay on the same train as normal. There is no requirement to alight and re-board.
JP 2004-265167 to Kawakami (hereinafter “Kawakami”). Kawakami disclose specifying a candidate for a combination pattern of securable train seats if at least one unoccupied seat is present in each of the unit intervals constituting the utilization interval.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0321568 to Gosuin (hereinafter “Gosuin”). Gosuin discloses a request from the second party to acquire tickets to an event, where the requested tickets must satisfy one or more conditions, e.g., location, number of seats, etc., and the server determines that the request cannot be satisfied. The server sends the requestor an invitation to join a wait-list queue and provides an indication of how likely the request is to be satisfied at a later time. In some implementations, the request is satisfied after the event begins, e.g., using tickets reclaimed from parties that do not use them.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0379390 to Scaroborough (hereinafter “Scarborough”). Scarborough discloses a request that can identify a number of requested tickets, and an electronic offer can be presented to the ticket holder to surrender the ticket.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0216973 to Tedesco et al. (hereinafter “Tedesco”). Tedesco discloses that a product may also be the right to use a service provided by the seller, as in the case of an airline ticket where the seller may offer to recall the product at a later point in time, subject to the original purchaser's acceptance of a buyout offer.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is (571)270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628