DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Application
Claims 1-13 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 12-13 were amended. Claims 1-13 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC § 112(f):
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 112(f) interpretations of claims 1 and 7-9 (pg. 9 of 12/4/2025 remarks) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1 and 7-9 are amended such that the claims clearly no longer invoke § 112(f).
35 USC § 112(b) Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 112(b) rejections of claims 1-13 (pgs. 8-9 of 12/4/2025 remarks) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 1, 9, 12, and 13 are amended to remove the previously unclear language. The § 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
35 USC § 103 Rejections:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous § 103 rejections of claims 1-13 (pgs. 9-17, remarks filed 12/4/2025) have been considered but they are moot as they do not apply to the current grounds of rejection in the § 103 rejections of claims 1-13, in response to applicant’s amendments.
Please see the current § 103 rejections of claims 1-13 below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 7-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-3 and 7-9 recite “the one more hardware processors…” in various instances but should read “the one or more hardware processors…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 recite “An information management system…comprising: one or more memories…one or more hardware processors…” (i.e. a machine); claims 9-11 recite “An information management system…comprising: one or more memories...one or more hardware processors…” (i.e. a machine); and claims 12 and 13 each recite “An information management method…” (i.e. a process). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1 and 12 (using claim 1 as representative) recites limitations to:
generate, before check-in of accommodation, reservation-specific information in accordance with an accommodation reservation in an accommodation schedule of the accommodation facility
store the reservation-specific information;
generate, after check-in of accommodation, accommodation-specific information that is unique information corresponding to the accommodation facility;
store the accommodation-specific information;
convert location information including at least the accommodation-specific information into an information code;
determine whether or not the reservation-specific information is stored
allow, only if it is determined that the reservation-specific information is stored…access to the provision information before check-in of accommodation;
determine whether or not the accommodation-specific information is stored…and
allow, only if it is determined that the accommodation-specific information is stored…access to the provision information
Independent claims 9 and 13 (using claim 9 as representative) recites highly similar limitations to:
generate, before check-in of accommodation, reservation-specific information in accordance with an accommodation reservation in an accommodation schedule of the accommodation facility
store the reservation-specific information:
determine whether or not the reservation-specific information is stored in the storage unit
allow, only if it is determined that the reservation-specific information is stored…access to the provision information before check-in of accommodation
generate after check-in of accommodation, accommodation-specific information that is unique information corresponding to the accommodation facility
store the accommodation-specific information
convert information including at least the accommodation-specific information into an information code
determine whether or not the accommodation-specific information is stored
allow, only if it is determined that the accommodation-specific information is stored in the storage unit… access to the provision information even if the reservation-specific information is not received
The limitations of independent claims 1, 9, 12 and 13 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. managing and controlling access to information for a hotel guest based on reservation-specific or accommodation-specific information) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis. Note that “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), claim limitations which recite commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of judicial exceptions. Therefore, since the processes described by the limitations above amount to a commercial interaction (i.e. managing and controlling access to information for a hotel guest based on reservation-specific or accommodation-specific information – which are interactions between a hotel/hotel device, and a guest/guest device), the claims fall into the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
These processes, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, also cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the “generate,” “generate,” “convert,” “determine,” and “allow,” “determine,” and “allow” steps of claim 1, and the “generate,” “determine,” “allow,” “generate,” “convert,” “determine,” and “allow” steps read on evaluations, judgments, and opinions performed with or without the aid. Furthermore, the various “generate,” and “store” steps could otherwise be performed by a human using pen and paper to write down and store information, and allowing access to provision information can be done by a human passing a written note or piece of paper to a guest containing information about their reservation or the available accommodations for guests of the hotel. As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1, 9, 12 and 13 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), but for the recitation of generic computer components in the claims, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
As claims 1, 9, 12 and 13 are identified by the examiner as reciting concepts that fall under more than one abstract idea grouping (i.e. “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes”), the examiner considers the limitations together as a single abstract idea for the purposes of the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis, in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
Step 2A Prong Two:
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1, 9, 12, and 13 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. managing and controlling access to information for a hotel guest based on reservation-specific or accommodation-specific information) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “An information management system…comprising: one or more memories that store processor-executable instructions; one more hardware processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions to cause the one more hardware processors to…,” “a storage unit,” and “a first information terminal” of claims 1 and 9; “a second information terminal” of claims 9 and 13; and “a storage unit” and “a first information terminal” of claim 12) See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.” The claims also merely use the storage unit in its ordinary capacity (e.g. for storage and/or retrieval of data). The 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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, but instead describes generic computer implementation used to apply the abstract idea, or carry out the abstract idea within a computer environment. Furthermore, the description in the respective preambles of claims 1, 9 12 and 13 (system for/method of “managing provision information to be displayed on an information display terminal installed in an accommodation facility”) merely describes an intended use of the system or method and at best, generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment, which does not add meaningful limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, because the claims, considered as a whole, do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 9, 12 and 13 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. managing and controlling access to information for a hotel guest based on reservation-specific or accommodation-specific information) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “An information management system…comprising: one or more memories that store processor-executable instructions; one more hardware processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions to cause the one more hardware processors to…,” “a storage unit,” and “a first information terminal” of claims 1 and 9; “a second information terminal” of claims 9 and 13; and “a storage unit” and “a first information terminal” of claim 12). The claims merely use the storage unit in its ordinary capacity (e.g. for storage and/or retrieval of data), which does not add significantly more, but instead describes generic computer implementation used to apply the abstract idea (e.g. carry out the abstract idea within a computer environment). Furthermore, the description in the respective preambles of claims 1, 9 12 and 13 (system for/method of “managing provision information to be displayed on an information display terminal installed in an accommodation facility”) merely describes an intended use of the system or method and at best, generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment. Considering the additional elements above as an ordered combination does not add significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2-8 and 10-11:
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-11 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 9 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 further describes the abstract idea above (“wherein the location information further includes identifying information for identifying a location of the provision information…allow…the access to the provision information by receiving the accommodation-specific information”) being applied on generic computers and/or computers operating in their ordinary capacity to receive/transmit data (“the one more hardware processor,” and “the first information terminal,” and “when the first information terminal reading the information code has accessed the provision information”).
Claim 3 further describes the abstract idea above (“allow…the access to the provision information even if the accommodation- specific information is not received…by receiving reservation-specific information, which is information generated in accordance with an accommodation reservation in an accommodation schedule of the accommodation facility”) being applied using generic computers and/or computers operating in their ordinary capacity to receive/transmit data (“the one more hardware processors,” “a second information terminal,” and “from the first information terminal”).
Claims 4 and 10 further describes the abstract idea above (“displays the accommodation-specific information for the first time after the check-in and the reservation-specific information is generated before the check-in”) being carried out on generic computers (“the information display terminal”).
Claims 5 and 11 specify “wherein the first information terminal is the same as the second information terminal,” – which does not add any meaningful limitations to the claims but at most generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 6-8 do not introduce any additional elements beyond those already considered above, but merely recite the following limitations which further describes the abstract idea above: “wherein provision information allowed to be accessed on the basis of the accommodation-specific information is different from provision information allowed to be accessed on the basis of the reservation-specific information” (claim 6); “generate accommodation-specific information corresponding to a guest” (claim 7); and “generate accommodation-specific information corresponding to identification information of a guest room where a guest stays” (claim 8).
Nothing in the dependent claims above, whether considered alone or in an ordered combination with the previous limitations, indicates an improvement to the functioning of a computer, an improvement to a specific technology or technical field, or otherwise adds meaningful limitations sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are not eligible under § 101.
Note: The current amendments change the scope of the claims and necessitate the new grounds of rejection under § 101, upon further consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160162811 A1 to Bhattad et al. (Bhattad) in view of US 20220188872 A1 to Bidner et al. (Bidner), and further in view of US 20190394210 A1 to Han et al. (Han).
Claim 1: Bhattad teaches:
An information management system for managing provision information to be displayed […] (Bhattad: Fig. 1, ¶ 0022-0024 showing system including system/server 102 and user devices 104-1 to 104-4; ¶ 0030-0035 showing managing reservation info and displaying information), the information management system comprising:
one or more memories that store processor-executable instructions; one more hardware processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions (Bhattad: ¶ 0025 “the system 102 may include at least one processor 202, an input/output (I/O) interface 204, and a memory 206…the at least one processor 202 is configured to fetch and execute computer-readable instructions stored in the memory 206”) to cause the one more hardware processors to:
generate, before check-in of accommodation, reservation-specific information in accordance with an accommodation reservation in an accommodation schedule of the accommodation facility (Bhattad: ¶ 0031-0032 showing based on receiving booking details corresponding to a start and end date and checkin and checkout time, and validation against previously stored booking details to check availability in the hotel schedule, “the unique reservation code module 216 generates a unique reservation code. The unique reservation code module 216 further transmits the unique reservation code to the user 104”);
cause a storage unit to store the reservation-specific information (Bhattad: ¶ 0029 “data 210, amongst other things, serves as a repository for storing data processed, received, and generated by one or more of the modules 208. The data 210 may include data generated as a result of the execution of one or more modules in the modules 208. Further, the data 210 may include a database 224 and other data 226”);
determine whether or not the reservation-specific information is stored in the storage unit (Bhattad: ¶ 0034 “the verification module 218 enables the user 104 to transmit the unique reservation code to the system 102. The verification module 218 may then verify the unique reservation code and the booking details. The unique reservation code may be verified, upon receiving the unique reservation code from the user 104, in order to confirm the booking of the room” and ¶ 0035 “The unique reservation code and the booking details are then verified by the system 102 in order to confirm the booking of the room in the hotel booked by the user 104. Once the unique reservation code and the booking details are verified…”);
allow, only if it is determined that the reservation-specific information is stored in the storage unit, a first information terminal to have an access to the provision information before check-in of accommodation (Bhattad: ¶ 0035 “Once the unique reservation code and the booking details are verified, the acknowledgment transmission module 220 transmits the acknowledgement by transmitting a layout of a plurality of rooms, of the hotel, on a display unit of the smart phone associated to the user 104. The acknowledgment transmission module 220 may then enable the user 104 to select a room of the plurality of rooms of his/her choice”)
With respect to the following limitations, Bhattad does not explicitly teach the following limitations as a whole for display on an information display terminal (as recited in preamble), or providing access to provision information after check-in. However, Bidner teaches:
“for managing provision information to be displayed on an information display terminal installed in an accommodation facility” (Bidner: ¶ 0057-0062, ¶ 0035-0037, ¶ 0043, Fig. 6A-6B showing customized content, i.e. provision information, displayed to the communication terminals in each hotel room according to guest information)
generate, after check-in of accommodation (Bidner: ¶ 0055 “A guest checks into the hotel (start block 302). A record of the guest's registration information may be created. This record may be stored in the PMS 102”; see ¶ 0036, ¶ 0056 the registration information includes the guest’s name and assigned room), accommodation-specific information that is unique information corresponding to the accommodation facility (Bidner: ¶ 0057 “receive the guest's grouping information from the guest information database 110 (e.g., “group A”, “group B”, or no grouping), thus determining the guest's grouping information (decision block 308), in order to select the appropriate stored content for display”; see Fig. 6A, ¶ 0070 showing interactive interface with customized content is generated, including various accommodation information specific to the hotel; and ¶ 0114 “generates an interactive interface comprising customized content specific to the particular grouping associated with the guest”);
cause the storage unit to store the accommodation-specific information (Bidner: ¶ 0040 “The content repository 112 may store a body of media curated by a hotel administrator…” wherein as per ¶ 0059-0060, Fig. 6A may include hotel services for the hotel; note that “The content repository 112 may be databases or libraries available online, a dedicated media storage server networked directly to the hotel server 104, or a partition or folder structure within hotel server 104 memory”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included storing and generating accommodation specific content to be displayed for a guest, i.e. provision information, according to group information associated with the guest of Bidner in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to better tailor the hotel experience to various groups or types of guests” (Bidner: ¶ 0003).
With respect to the limitation:
determine whether or not the accommodation-specific information is stored in the storage unit; and
As seen above, Bidner teaches selecting content from, by a hotel server, content for display on a communication terminal that is stored in a content repository integrated in a hotel server (Bidner: ¶ 0057, ¶ 0040 showing querying guest information database to retrieve guest information and determine guest group, and then select the appropriate stored content (e.g. from database 112) for display, i.e. the content is necessarily identified and retrieved), and therefore clearly teaches determining that the accommodation-specific information is stored in the storage unit.
However, to the extent that Bhattad/Bidner do not explicitly teach determining whether or not the accommodation-specific information is stored in the storage unit as part of providing access, Han teaches a server receiving authentication information corresponding to a particular hotel room/zone, i.e. accommodation-specific information from a user terminal, and checking whether or not the authentication information matches authentication information in a database in order to approve user access to the accommodation-specific information (Han: ¶ 0057; and see ¶ 0042 “when an access to the user authority is approved, the server 110 may allow a web page used to access to the user authority to be displayed on a screen of the user terminal 130”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the checking whether received authentication information to access hotel room information/functions corresponds to valid information in a database of Han in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to solve the problem that “when a QR code is used to provide use authority for a person staying at a room of a hotel so that the person may control lighting or temperature of the room or make a payment while staying at the room, the person may keep the user authority of the room even after the person checks out and accordingly, it is inconvenient in changing a QR code each time when users check in” (Han: ¶ 0004). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the following limitation, Bhattad does not explicitly teach, however, Bidner teaches:
allow, only if it is determined that the accommodation-specific information is stored in the storage unit, the first information terminal to have an access to the provision information (Bidner: ¶ 0057 showing “the hotel server selects the appropriate content for display and pushes such content to the communication terminals 116, accordingly”, which as per ¶ 0040 above is stored in content repository integrated into hotel server; also see ¶ 0057-0062 showing displaying selected content (provision information), i.e. allowing access to specific content on a terminal device based on the user belonging to a specific grouping found in the guest information record associated with the user; ¶ 0006-0007 “presenting, on a corresponding graphical user interface (GUI) of the particular communication terminal, the interactive interface comprising customized content specific to the particular grouping associated with the guest”; note that as per ¶ 0067-0069 the interface content from the in-room communication terminal may be mirrored on guest mobile devices)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the selection from storage and display of hotel interface content, i.e. provision information, according to group information associated with the guest of Bidner in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner/Han with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to better tailor the hotel experience to various groups or types of guests” (Bidner: ¶ 0003).
With respect to the remaining limitation, neither of Bhattad or Bidner explicitly teach the following. However, Han teaches:
convert location information including at least the accommodation-specific information into an information code (Han: ¶ 0033, ¶ 0026-0027, ¶ 0045-0046, Fig. 1 showing generating a QR code including authority information linked to each zone (e.g. room) that provides user access to control devices in each zone (room) for a period of time; also see Figs. 3-6 generally for context);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the generation of a time-based QR code including zone authority information of Han in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner/Han with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to solve the problem that “when a QR code is used to provide use authority for a person staying at a room of a hotel so that the person may control lighting or temperature of the room or make a payment while staying at the room, the person may keep the user authority of the room even after the person checks out and accordingly, it is inconvenient in changing a QR code each time when users check in” (Han: ¶ 0004). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Note: The “reservation-specific information” and “accommodation-specific information” are not limited in the claims or the specification to a specific type of data, therefore, they may include any one or more elements of reservation related information and any one or more elements of accommodation related information (respectively), under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 2: Bhattad/Bidner/Han teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Bhattad/Bidner do not explicitly teach, however, Han teaches:
wherein the location information further includes identifying information for identifying a location of the provision information (Han: ¶ 0006, ¶ 0043-0046, Figs. 3-5 showing the authentication/authority information corresponds to and identifies a user authority set to a particular zone), and
wherein the one more hardware processors is caused to allow the first information terminal to have the access to the provision information (Han: ¶ 0042 “when an access to the user authority is approved, the server 110 may allow a web page used to access to the user authority to be displayed on a screen of the user terminal 130”) by receiving the accommodation-specific information from the first information terminal when the first information terminal reading the information code has accessed the provision information (Han: ¶ 0033, ¶ 0026-0027, ¶ 0043-0046 showing user terminal scans a QR code containing authentication information and provides it to the server, and the server approves user access when the received authentication information exists in the database)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the scanning of a QR code including zone authority information to approve access of Han in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner/Han with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, for the same reasons described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 7: Bhattad/Bidner/Han teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitation, Bhattad does not explicitly teach, however, Bidner teaches:
wherein the one more hardware processors is caused to further generate accommodation-specific information corresponding to a guest (Bidner: Bidner: ¶ 0055 “A guest checks into the hotel (start block 302). A record of the guest's registration information may be created. This record may be stored in the PMS 102”; ¶ 0057 “receive the guest's grouping information from the guest information database 110 (e.g., “group A”, “group B”, or no grouping), thus determining the guest's grouping information (decision block 308), in order to select the appropriate stored content for display”; see Fig. 6A, ¶ 0070 element 616 showing interactive interface content is generated, including various accommodation information specific to the hotel; also see ¶ 0114 “ step 920 the server queries a guest information database using the identification of the guest to determine a particular grouping associated with the guest, and in step 925 generates an interactive interface comprising customized content specific to the particular grouping associated with the guest”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included generating accommodation specific content to be displayed for a guest, i.e. provision information, according to group information associated with the guest of Bidner in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner/Han with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to better tailor the hotel experience to various groups or types of guests” (Bidner: ¶ 0003).
Claim 8: Bhattad/Bidner/Han teach claim 1. Bhattad, as modified above, further teaches:
wherein one more hardware processors is caused to further generate accommodation-specific information corresponding to identification information of a guest room where a guest stays (Bhattad: ¶ 0036 “Upon receiving the details of the room, the acknowledgment transmission module 220 transmits an acknowledgment to the user 104. The acknowledgment indicates details of the room that has been allotted to the user 104”; also see ¶ 0046)
Claim 9: Bhattad teaches:
An information management system for managing provision information to be displayed […] (Bhattad: Fig. 1, ¶ 0022-0024 showing system including system/server 102 and user devices 104-1 to 104-4; ¶ 0030-0035 showing managing reservation info and displaying information), the information management system comprising:
one or more memories that store processor-executable instructions; one more hardware processors configured to execute the processor-executable instructions (Bhattad: ¶ 0025 “the system 102 may include at least one processor 202, an input/output (I/O) interface 204, and a memory 206…the at least one processor 202 is configured to fetch and execute computer-readable instructions stored in the memory 206”) to cause the one more hardware processors to:
generate, before check-in of accommodation, reservation-specific information in accordance with an accommodation reservation in an accommodation schedule of the accommodation facility (Bhattad: ¶ 0031-0032 showing based on receiving booking details corresponding to a start and end date and checkin and checkout time, and validation against previously stored booking details to check availability in the hotel schedule, “the unique reservation code module 216 generates a unique reservation code. The unique reservation code module 216 further transmits the unique reservation code to the user 104”):
cause a storage unit to store the reservation-specific information (Bhattad: ¶ 0029 “data 210, amongst other things, serves as a repository for storing data processed, received, and generated by one or more of the modules 208. The data 210 may include data generated as a result of the execution of one or more modules in the modules 208. Further, the data 210 may include a database 224 and other data 226”);
determine whether or not the reservation-specific information is stored in the storage unit (Bhattad: ¶ 0034 “the verification module 218 enables the user 104 to transmit the unique reservation code to the system 102. The verification module 218 may then verify the unique reservation code and the booking details. The unique reservation code may be verified, upon receiving the unique reservation code from the user 104, in order to confirm the booking of the room” and ¶ 0035 “The unique reservation code and the booking details are then verified by the system 102 in order to confirm the booking of the room in the hotel booked by the user 104. Once the unique reservation code and the booking details are verified…”);
allow, only if it is determined that the reservation-specific information is stored in the storage unit, a first information terminal to have an access to the provision information before check-in of accommodation (Bhattad: ¶ 0035 “Once the unique reservation code and the booking details are verified, the acknowledgment transmission module 220 transmits the acknowledgement by transmitting a layout of a plurality of rooms, of the hotel, on a display unit of the smart phone associated to the user 104. The acknowledgment transmission module 220 may then enable the user 104 to select a room of the plurality of rooms of his/her choice”)
With respect to the following limitations, Bhattad does not explicitly teach the following limitations as a whole for display on an information display terminal (as recited in preamble), or providing access to provision information after check-in. However, Bidner teaches:
“for managing provision information to be displayed on an information display terminal installed in an accommodation facility” (Bidner: ¶ 0057-0062, ¶ 0035-0037, ¶ 0043, Fig. 6A-6B showing customized content, i.e. provision information, displayed to the communication terminals in each hotel room according to guest information)
cause the storage unit to store the accommodation-specific information (Bidner: ¶ 0040 “The content repository 112 may store a body of media curated by a hotel administrator…” wherein as per ¶ 0058, Fig. 6B may include hotel services for the hotel; note that “The content repository 112 may be databases or libraries available online, a dedicated media storage server networked directly to the hotel server 104, or a partition or folder structure within hotel server 104 memory”);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the storage of hotel interface content, i.e. accommodation specific information of Bidner in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to better tailor the hotel experience to various groups or types of guests” (Bidner: ¶ 0003).
With respect to the limitation:
determine whether or not the accommodation-specific information is stored in the storage unit;
As seen above, Bidner teaches selecting content from, by a hotel server, content for display on a communication terminal that is stored in a content repository integrated in a hotel server (Bidner: ¶ 0057, ¶ 0040 showing querying guest information database to retrieve guest information and determine guest group, and then select the appropriate stored content (e.g. from database 112) for display, i.e. the content is necessarily identified and retrieved), and therefore clearly teaches determining that the accommodation-specific information is stored in the storage unit.
However, to the extent that Bhattad/Bidner do not explicitly teach determining whether or not the accommodation-specific information is stored in the storage unit as part of providing access, Han teaches a server receiving authentication information corresponding to a particular hotel room/zone, i.e. accommodation-specific information from a user terminal, and checking whether or not the authentication information matches authentication information in a database in order to approve user access to the accommodation-specific information (Han: ¶ 0057; and see ¶ 0042 “when an access to the user authority is approved, the server 110 may allow a web page used to access to the user authority to be displayed on a screen of the user terminal 130”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the checking whether received authentication information to access hotel room information/functions corresponds to valid information in a database of Han in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to solve the problem that “when a QR code is used to provide use authority for a person staying at a room of a hotel so that the person may control lighting or temperature of the room or make a payment while staying at the room, the person may keep the user authority of the room even after the person checks out and accordingly, it is inconvenient in changing a QR code each time when users check in” (Han: ¶ 0004). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the following limitation, Bhattad does not explicitly teach, however, Bidner teaches:
and allow, only if it is determined that the accommodation-specific information is stored in the storage unit, a second information terminal to have an access to the provision information (Bidner: ¶ 0057 showing “the hotel server selects the appropriate content for display and pushes such content to the communication terminals 116, accordingly”; ¶ 0040 as above showing the content is stored and selected from content repository which may integrated into hotel server) even if the reservation-specific information is not received from the first information terminal (Bidner: ¶ 0057 showing “or else non-member/grouping if no records match the guest's information” and ¶ 0058 “For no grouping (e.g., non-members) (block 310), the communication terminals 116 may be configured to display a default interface and content tagged as applicable for all guests, such hotel services and instructions for emergency situations”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the selection and display of hotel interface content, i.e. provision information of Bidner in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner/Han with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
With respect to the remaining limitation, neither of Bhattad or Bidner explicitly teach the following. However, Han teaches:
convert information including at least the accommodation-specific information into an information code (Han: ¶ 0033, ¶ 0026-0027, ¶ 0045-0046, Fig. 1 showing generating a QR code including authority information linked to each zone (e.g. room accommodation) that provides user authority to control devices in each zone (room) for a period of time; also see Figs. 3-6 generally for context);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the generation of a time-based QR code including zone authority information of Han in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner/Han with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation to solve the problem that “when a QR code is used to provide use authority for a person staying at a room of a hotel so that the person may control lighting or temperature of the room or make a payment while staying at the room, the person may keep the user authority of the room even after the person checks out and accordingly, it is inconvenient in changing a QR code each time when users check in” (Han: ¶ 0004). It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to do so, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Note: The “reservation-specific information” and “accommodation-specific information” are not limited in the claims or the specification to a specific type of data, therefore, they may include any one or more elements of reservation related information and any one or more elements of accommodation related information (respectively), under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim 10: Bhattad/Bidner/Han teach claim 9. With respect to the following limitation, Bhattad does not explicitly teach, however, Bidner teaches:
wherein the information display terminal displays the accommodation-specific information for the first time after the check-in (Bidner: ¶ 0057 showing “the hotel server selects the appropriate content for display and pushes such content to the communication terminals 116, accordingly”, which as per ¶ 0055 is after check-in; also see ¶ 0057-0062 showing displaying selected content (provision information), i.e. allowing access to specific content on a terminal device based on the user belonging to a specific grouping found in the guest information record associated with the user; ¶ 0006-0007 “presenting, on a corresponding graphical user interface (GUI) of the particular communication terminal, the interactive interface comprising customized content specific to the particular grouping associated with the guest”; note that as per ¶ 0067-0069 the interface content from the in-room communication terminal may be mirrored on guest mobile devices)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the display of hotel interface content, i.e. provision information, after check according to group information associated with the guest of Bidner in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner/Han with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to better tailor the hotel experience to various groups or types of guests” (Bidner: ¶ 0003).
Bhattad, as modified above, further teaches:
and the reservation-specific information is generated before the check-in (as above, see Bhattad: ¶ 0031-0032 showing based on receiving booking details corresponding to a start and end date and checkin and checkout time, and validation against previously stored booking details to check availability in the hotel schedule, “the unique reservation code module 216 generates a unique reservation code. The unique reservation code module 216 further transmits the unique reservation code to the user 104”)
Claim 11: Bhattad/Bidner/Han teach claim 9. With respect to the following limitation, Bhattad does not explicitly teach, however, Bidner teaches:
wherein the first information terminal is the same as the second information terminal (Bidner: ¶ 0067-0069 showing the interface content from the in-room communication terminal may be mirrored on a guest’s mobile device – which as per claim 9 above the first information terminal is also the guest’s mobile phone)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include that the second information terminal may be a guest mobile device as taught by Bidner in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner/Han, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12: See the rejection of claim 1 above teaching analogous limitations but for claim 12 being directed to an information management method. Bhattad further teaches An information management method (Bhattad: ¶ 0005, ¶ 0007, and ¶ 0039-0046, Fig. 4 showing method 400).
Claim 13: See the rejection of claim 9 above teaching analogous limitations but for claim 13 being directed to an information management method. Bhattad further teaches An information management method (Bhattad: ¶ 0005, ¶ 0007, and ¶ 0039-0046, Fig. 4 showing method 400).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160162811 A1 to Bhattad et al. (Bhattad) in view of US 20220188872 A1 to Bidner et al. (Bidner), and further in view of US 20190394210 A1 to Han et al. (Han), and further in view of US 20130305320 A1 to Warrick et al. (Warrick).
Claim 3: Bhattad/Bidner/Han teach claim 1. With respect to the following limitations, Bhattad/Bidner/Han do not explicitly teach, however, Warrick teaches:
wherein the one more hardware processors is caused to allow a second information terminal to have the access to the provision information even if the accommodation-specific information is not received from the first information terminal by receiving reservation-specific information, which is information generated in accordance with an accommodation reservation in an accommodation schedule of the accommodation facility, from the second information terminal (Warrick: ¶ 0024, ¶ 0026, ¶ 0028, ¶ 0135-0139/Fig. 14, and ¶ 0140-0145/Fig. 15 showing one or more devices may be provided access to internet and provided provision information upon detecting a MAC address of one or more devices and matching the device MAC address of the one or more user devices to reservation information included in an active reservation record stored in the hotel database)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the automatic internet connection and display of provision information based on the reservation-specific information of Warrick in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner/Han with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation that “a high speed Internet access (HSIA) service at a hospitality establishment such as a hotel is automatically activated for a particular guest's user device upon detecting the device identifier of the user device on the local area network of the hospitality establishment. An advantage of this embodiment is the guest may immediately access the Internet from the user device upon arrival at the hospitality establishment without requiring the guest to first log in at a login portal from the user device or preinstall special client software” (Warrick: ¶ 0016-0017).
Claim 4: Bhattad/Bidner/Han/Warrick claim 3. With respect to the following limitation, Bhattad does not explicitly teach, however, Bidner teaches:
wherein the information display terminal displays the accommodation-specific information for the first time after the check-in (Bidner: ¶ 0057 showing “the hotel server selects the appropriate content for display and pushes such content to the communication terminals 116, accordingly”, which as per ¶ 0055 is after check-in; also see ¶ 0057-0062 showing displaying selected content (provision information), i.e. allowing access to specific content on a terminal device based on the user belonging to a specific grouping found in the guest information record associated with the user; ¶ 0006-0007 “presenting, on a corresponding graphical user interface (GUI) of the particular communication terminal, the interactive interface comprising customized content specific to the particular grouping associated with the guest”; note that as per ¶ 0067-0069 the interface content from the in-room communication terminal may be mirrored on guest mobile devices)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the display of hotel interface content, i.e. provision information, after check according to group information associated with the guest of Bidner in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner/Han/Warrick with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to better tailor the hotel experience to various groups or types of guests” (Bidner: ¶ 0003).
Bhattad, as modified above, further teaches:
and the reservation-specific information is generated before the check-in (as above, see Bhattad: ¶ 0031-0032 showing based on receiving booking details corresponding to a start and end date and checkin and checkout time, and validation against previously stored booking details to check availability in the hotel schedule, “the unique reservation code module 216 generates a unique reservation code. The unique reservation code module 216 further transmits the unique reservation code to the user 104”)
Claim 5: Bhattad/Bidner/Han/Warrick teach claim 3. With respect to the following limitation, Bhattad does not explicitly teach, however, Bidner teaches:
wherein the first information terminal is the same as the second information terminal (Bidner: ¶ 0067-0069 showing the interface content from the in-room communication terminal may be mirrored on a guest’s mobile device; while noting that as per claim 3 above, the second information terminal is also a guest/user mobile device as per Warrick)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include that the first information terminal may be a guest mobile device as taught by Bidner in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner/Han/Warrick (noting that as per claim 3, the second information terminal as taught by Warrick is also a guest mobile device), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6: Bhattad/Bidner/Han/Warrick teach claim 3. With respect to the limitation:
wherein provision information allowed to be accessed on the basis of the accommodation-specific information is different from provision information allowed to be accessed on the basis of the reservation-specific information
Bhattad teaches provision information accessed on the basis of reservation-specific information that shows a layout of rooms to select from (Bhattad: ¶ 0035 “Once the unique reservation code and the booking details are verified, the acknowledgment transmission module 220 transmits the acknowledgement by transmitting a layout of a plurality of rooms, of the hotel, on a display unit of the smart phone associated to the user 104. The acknowledgment transmission module 220 may then enable the user 104 to select a room of the plurality of rooms of his/her choice”), but does not explicitly teach the accommodation-specific information, as different provision information.
However, Bidner teaches provision information allowed to be accessed on the basis of the accommodation-specific information after check-in, which is different from the pre-check in provision information above (Bidner: ¶ 0057 showing “the hotel server selects the appropriate content for display and pushes such content to the communication terminals 116, accordingly”, see Fig. 6A-6B showing information about hotel amenities, Wi-fi, special offers, restaurant, etc.; which as per ¶ 0040 above is stored in content repository integrated into hotel server; also see ¶ 0057-0062 showing displaying selected content (provision information)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the selection from storage and display of hotel interface content, i.e. provision information, according to group information associated with the guest of Bidner in the hotel guest interface system of Bhattad/Bidner/Han/Warrick with a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the claimed invention, with the motivation “to better tailor the hotel experience to various groups or types of guests” (Bidner: ¶ 0003).
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 Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628