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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response to Office action was received on October 31, 2025.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, all of the prior art claim rejections, from the previous Office action, are hereby withdrawn.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, none of the elements/limitations are currently being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/sixth paragraph.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, the corresponding 101 claim rejections, from the previous Office action, have been correspondingly amended, below in this Office action.
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, please note the new claim objection, below in this Office action.
Regarding the 101 claim rejections, Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed to certain method(s) of organizing human activity. Applicant argues that the claim recitations are improvements in determining and providing seating reservations to optimize passenger comfort based on desired seat conditions while minimizing a movement burden on the user and surrounding passengers and in transforming data to accurately determine seat accommodations that minimize the movement burden. This appears to be an argument for eligibility based on the technological or computing improvement 101 consideration. Examiner disagrees. Determining an appropriate seat or combination of seats for a user during their route in this application, even if the user experiences advantages in terms such as comfort, convenience, and ease of movement between seats, would not invoke the 101 technological/computing improvement consideration, because organizing seating is not a technological or computing field. Rather, it is a business or organizational process. In addition, for the technological/computing improvement consideration, there must be at least some meaningful contribution from additional elements/limitations beyond the judicial exception. As can be seen from the 101 rejections, all of the additional elements/limitations beyond the judicial exception fall under mere instructions to apply an exception, in the form of generic/general-purpose computing system components. Since these are generic computing components performing their generic computing functions, even in combination, they do not meaningfully contribute to any alleged technological/computing improvement here, and thus the technological/computing improvement consideration is not invoked for eligibility for that reason as well.
Applicant next argues that the amended claims as a whole do not fall into any of the subject matter subgroupings of “certain method(s) of organizing human activity.” In the 101 rejection for representative claim 1, Examiner addresses “certain method(s) of organizing human activity” as follows:
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): manages transportation reservations, which are commonly commercial;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages what seat(s) a passenger will occupy; manages relationships/interactions between passengers and the transportation organization, each of which may involve people.
Looking at representative claim 1, the claim is trying to put together a convenient seat (or combination of seats) for a user to be assigned to in a seat reservation system. The transportation could be by train, for example. The transportation has a route with a series of stops; the user need not be riding the entire route, but rather only the section that they need to travel. The user may also have a desired seat condition (like an attribute) that they wish their seat to have. The system attempts to find a seat that is currently available for the entire portion of the route that the user needs. However, this may not be possible if other users have reserved seats already for sections of the route that the user is traveling. If the system cannot place the user with a single seat throughout the user’s route, the system attempts to find a series of multiple seats that the user can occupy in sequence to get through the user’s travel. In doing that, the system attempts to optimize convenience for the user by taking into account the burden of moving between seats. For example, a movement burden score is calculated that tends to favor seats that are closer together, which would ease the user’s transfer between seats during the user’s travel.
From this discussion, we can see why Examiner found the claim to recite “certain method(s) of organizing human activity.” One of the points of the claims is organize transportation reservations around each other; transportation reservations are commonly commercial interactions. In addition, by helping the user find seating, the system is managing personal behavior. The system is also managing relationships and interactions between travelers on the transportation by coordinating their seating with respect to each other. Furthermore, the system manages relationships and interactions between the users and the transportation provider, each of which may involve people. Therefore, at least two of the subject matter subgroupings of “certain method(s) of organizing human activity” are invoked, and the claims recite “certain method(s) of organizing human activity.”
Regarding considering the claims as a whole with respect to “certain method(s) of organizing human activity,” Examiner has done so. In Step 2A, Prong One, the question is if the claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1) states: “In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.” In Step 2A, Prong Two, and Step 2B of 101 analysis, additional elements beyond the judicial exception in a claim are also analyzed. Examiner’s point here is that, in performing proper 101 analysis, both judicial-exception and non-judicial-exception limitations are considered; therefore, it may be said that the claim as a whole is considered and analyzed. That being said, the mere presence of non-judicial-exception elements does not mean that the claims do not recite a judicial exception or that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. If a claim sets forth or describes a judicial exception, then the claim recites the judicial exception, even if other, non-judicial-exception limitations are present. As far as whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, this is determined by analyzing the additional elements beyond the judicial exception, along with the rest of the claim, to determine if the claim is eligible using the 101 guidance considerations, such as the technological/computing improvement consideration. Examiner has performed this proper analysis.
Applicant later mentions the improvements argument again, but Examiner already addressed this argument above in this discussion.
Applicant next argues that the claimed subject matter applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Examiner disagrees. Looking to the 101 rejection for representative independent claim 1, we see that the claim amounts to performing an abstract idea on generic/general-purpose computing system components, without more. Under USPTO 101 guidance, such an arrangement is not eligible.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible under Step 2B of 101 analysis (significantly more). Examiner continues to disagree. Turning to representative independent claim 1’s 101 rejection again, we see that, again, the claim amounts to performing an abstract idea on generic/general-purpose computing system components, without more; under USPTO 101 guidance, such an arrangement is not eligible. This continues to be the case in Step 2B of 101 analysis.
Applicant next references the Trading Technologies decision, but Examiner finds that decision to be distinguishable from Applicant’s claims. Trading Technologies featured a very particular and non-typical type of trading user interface, with particular resulting advantages. Examiner is not aware of any technological or computing features in Applicant’s claims which are comparable to the user interface in Trading Technologies in those ways. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments for eligibility with respect to overcoming the prior art rejections, see MPEP 2106.05(I), which states: “Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.” Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that all of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 has grammatical issues and appears to have typographical errors. To correct these issues, Examiner suggests rewriting claim 15 to read as follows:
15. The seat reservation method according to claim 14, wherein the computer acts as a server, and the plurality of communication terminals are in data communication with the server via a communication network for managing the seat reservations for the passenger vehicle.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In response to Applicant’s amendment of the claims, none of the elements/limitations are currently being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)/sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1 and 5, Claim(s) 1 and 5 recite(s):
- managing seat reservations for a passenger vehicle;
- seat arrangement information of the passenger vehicle, seat reservation information indicating a seat reservation status for individual sections traveled by the passenger vehicle, use route information indicating a use route that is used by a user and includes a plurality of sections traveled by the passenger vehicle, and seat condition information indicating a desired seat condition of the user;
- search for a same seat satisfying the desired seat condition throughout the use route, based on the seat arrangement information, the seat reservation information, the use route information, and the seat condition information;
- when the same seat does not exist, search for a combination of a plurality of seats satisfying the desired seat condition throughout the use route;
- when a plurality of combinations exist as a plurality of combination candidates of the combination, execute a score calculation process of calculating, for each of the plurality of combination candidates, a movement burden score indicating a magnitude of burden of movement of the user between the plurality of seats, based on the seat arrangement information and the seat reservation information;
- output, to the user, a combination candidate having a smallest movement burden score among the plurality of combination candidates even when the same seat satisfying the desired seat condition does not exist throughout the use route;
- wherein in the score calculation process, calculates the movement burden score for each of the plurality of combination candidates by adding up individual scores for each of a plurality of factors related to the burden of movement;
- the plurality of factors include: a first factor being a number of one or more reserved seats located between a seat before movement of the user and an aisle of the passenger vehicle and between the aisle and a seat after the movement of the user when the user moves between the plurality of seats; and a second factor being a number of movements between cars of the passenger vehicle that occur when the user moves between the plurality of seats, the individual score of the first factor is higher when the number of the one or more reserved seats is larger, and the individual score of the second factor is higher when the number of movements between the cars is larger.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations): manages transportation reservations, which are commonly commercial;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages what seat(s) a passenger will occupy; manages relationships/interactions between passengers and the transportation organization, each of which may involve people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a system; one or more memory devices configured to store; processing circuitry configured; outputting via presenting, to the user via a communication terminal of the user; executed by a computer: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 3-4 and 6-17, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- a plurality of communication terminals (claims 8-9 and 14-15);
- a server (claims 9 and 15);
- data communication (claims 9 and 15);
- a communication network (claims 9 and 15);
- each of the plurality of communication terminals receives an operation from a respective user via an input unit, and displays information to the respective user via an output unit (claims 10 and 16);
- display (claims 11 and 17).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, claim 3 merely provides further detail about the individual scores.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-17 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Muroi, US 20220292850 A1 (reserved seat monitoring system, reserved seat monitoring method, and storage medium).
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 NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 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, NATHAN UBER can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628