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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/31/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,265,929. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 of patent # 12,265,929 contain every element of claim 1 of the instant application and as such anticipate claim 1 of the instant application.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “receive registration information when a guest checks into the hotel, the registration information including an identification of the guest and a particular assigned room of the plurality of hotel rooms; querying the guest to select a checkout time from a plurality of options for a date of departure of the guest, the plurality of options comprising a hotel standard checkout time and one or more later checkout times than the hotel standard checkout time; receive a selection of a particular checkout time and to share the selection of the particular checkout time; and provide the selection of the particular checkout time for the guest for the particular assigned room with a hotel service scheduler.”
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation done by a human using generic computer components under certain methods of organizing human activity under sales and business relations. That is, other than reciting “server”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by a human using generic computer components. For example, “receiving”, “identifying”, “causing”, “receiving”, “providing”, “presenting” and “sharing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to manually present the user with multiple checkout dates/times for a user to pick from.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the following additional elements- a “server”, “interface” and a “communication terminal” to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of receiving information, identifying solutions and determining what should be presented to a user) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claim 1 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohammed (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0057501) in view of Moati et al. referred herein as Moati (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0213161).
As to claim 1, Mohammed teaches a system and method comprising:
a server; and a plurality of communication terminals in communication with the server, each of the communication terminals having a graphical user interface (GUI) and being associated with a respective room of a plurality of hotel rooms of a hotel; (para 37, 40-41, 79 and fig. 4)
wherein the server is configured to identify a particular communication terminal of the plurality of communication terminals that is associated with the particular assigned room; (para 40, 57 and 59-60, show that each Room concierge interface is associated with a room that is connected to the hotel server)
wherein the particular communication terminal is configured to present an interactive interface on a corresponding GUI of the particular communication terminal, the presented interactive interface querying the guest to select a checkout option; (para 79)
Mohammed does not teach:
wherein the server is configured to receive registration information when a guest checks into the hotel, the registration information including an identification of the guest and a particular assigned room of the plurality of hotel rooms;
the presented interactive interface querying the guest to select a checkout time from a plurality of options for a date of departure of the guest, the plurality of options comprising a hotel standard checkout time and one or more later checkout times than the hotel standard checkout time;
wherein the particular communication terminal is configured to receive a selection of a particular checkout time and to share the selection of the particular checkout time with the server;
wherein the server is configured to provide the selection of the particular checkout time for the guest for the particular assigned room with a hotel service scheduler.
However, Moati teaches:
wherein the server is configured to receive registration information when a guest checks into the hotel, the registration information including an identification of the guest and a particular assigned room of the plurality of hotel rooms; (para 43-44 and fig. 5c, show that the user registers to the hotel and gets a room to be assigned)
the presented interactive interface querying the guest to select a checkout time from a plurality of options for a date of departure of the guest, the plurality of options comprising a hotel standard checkout time and one or more later checkout times than the hotel standard checkout time; (para 39, 44, 61 and fig. 5c, 6)
wherein the particular communication terminal is configured to receive a selection of a particular checkout time and to share the selection of the particular checkout time with the server; (fig. 6 and para 63)
wherein the server is configured to provide the selection of the particular checkout time for the guest for the particular assigned room with a hotel service scheduler. (para 63 and fig. 6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to allow the user to select a late checkout option in Mohammed as taught by Moati. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Moati that doing so would enable a greater number of reservations over an equivalent time period to facilitate an increase in occupancy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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 on 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628