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 March 2, 2026.
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.
Regarding the 101 rejections, in the “No Abstract Idea” section of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant argues essentially based on the complexity of the claims and the nature of the problems that the claims intend to solve. Applicant downplays the travel nature of the claims, while emphasizing such above complexities. Applicant also argues against Examiner’s characterization of the computing components as generic/general-purpose, arguing that, as configured with their corresponding complex functions, the computing components are not merely generic or general-purpose.
In response, under 101 analysis, a claim is said to recite a judicial exception if the judicial exception is set forth or described in the claim. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). Even if there are other elements in the claim, the claim still recites an abstract idea if an abstract idea is also set forth or described in the claim. Therefore, even if only parts of the claims directly reference the travel features, this does not exclude the claims from reciting the abstract idea described in the 101 rejections. Furthermore, the complexity of the claims’ recited data processing also does not excuse the claims from reciting the abstract idea. It should be noted that the ultimate purpose of the independent claims is to match user requests to feasible travel itineraries. Although the data processing behind such matching is described in quite a bit of claimed detail, such data processing itself can all be regarded as steps in performing such travel matching that corresponds to the abstract idea. Regarding the generic/general-purpose computing component argument, merely running a program for an abstract idea on generic computing components, for example, does not mean that the computing components cannot be treated as generic under 101 analysis. This is because the programmed functions there would correspond to pieces of the abstract idea, while the program and other computing components (aside from the abstract idea), when analyzed as “additional elements beyond the abstract idea” under 101 analysis, would not still be treated as including the abstract idea, since, again, the analysis treats them as “additional elements beyond the abstract idea”. Also, 101 analysis does not treat an abstract-idea claim as eligible merely because the abstract idea is recited on generic/general-purpose computing components, without more. This logic would not work if, when combined with an abstract idea, the generic/general-purpose computing components were regarded as automatically having been converted into non-generic/non-general-purpose, for purposes of 101 analysis; that would change the analysis in a way that is not indicated by the current 101 guidance. Therefore, Examiner does not find this Applicant argument to be persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the claims represent an Enfish-like technical/computing improvement and therefore are eligible. Examiner disagrees. Enfish represented an improvement in data storage technology. Applicant’s argument is that the algorithm for matching feasible travel itineraries has a comparable technical/computing improvement, because the algorithm produces increases in the functioning of the underlying computing resources due to aspects of the algorithm which reduce the amount of computing resources consumed. Examiner believes that this situation is distinguishable from an Enfish-like situation. To further explain, Applicant’s argued data processing benefits appear to follow from how the algorithm focuses only on travel attributes that are judged to be relevant to the particular user and request. For example, the matching algorithm will not consider an attribute about whether a seat on a plane is by a window, if that attribute is not relevant to the user’s preferences or search request inputs. Each reduction in unnecessary-to-consider attributes could save on computing resources consumed by the algorithm.
Examiner does not view this as an Enfish-like technical/computing improvement. While the detailed data processing situation, that Applicant’s claims describe, may not be common, the general idea of avoiding unnecessary steps in data processing is essentially common sense. An example of this would be using dynamically-sized for-next loops in computer programming, to process an array in which only a set number of items, at the beginning of the array, are being used: one would not want to run a fixed number of 1000 loops when only the first ten items of an array are currently being used, and thus need to be processed, by a program.
Another way of analyzing this issue of Applicant’s claims is by making an analogy to a claim to a generic computer which performs a function of forecasting weather temperature. Let us say that we start with a function that forecasts weather temperature based on two independent variables. Now let us also add to the function that, when one of those variables is below a certain threshold value, it does not significantly affect the weather temperature, so, in those situations, the weather temperature is instead forecasted based on only one independent variable, using a simpler function which uses less computing resources.
Does this claim become eligible because it results in a savings in computing resources? Examiner does not believe so. This is because, even though the weather temperature calculator may result in a valued savings in computing resources, the weather temperature calculation function is still an abstract idea (a bit more complex overall mathematical function, having two sub-functions) performed on generic computing components, without more. Wouldn’t the savings in computing resources here be “more” in terms of being a technical/computing improvement? Examiner does not believe so, because the improvement is to the mathematical function itself, which is the judicial exception. Under 101 analysis, an improvement under the technological/computing improvement consideration cannot be to the judicial exception (or abstract idea) by itself.
Examiner believes that Applicant’s argument here is similar to Examiner’s weather calculator example above. The argued improvement, a more efficient algorithm, is ultimately to the judicial exception itself (the feasible itinerary matching procedure). Therefore, the technical/computing improvement consideration would not be invoked under 101, and 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 those 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 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) 1-23 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 14, Claim(s) 1 and 14 recite(s):
- (a method) for processing multi-passenger and multiattribute travel queries;
- a travel lexicon having attribute names and related values for passengers, flights, hotels, origins, and destinations;
- a travel taxonomy comprising tables having logical relations and predicates;
- instantiate, for each of a plurality of attributes of a travel request obtained, at least one attribute of the plurality of attributes in terms of the travel lexicon that are relevant to user preferences, thereby generating a compressed set of instantiated user preferences;
- index the compressed set of instantiated user preferences, thereby generating an attribute index comprising a plurality of indexed travel attributes defined in terms of the travel lexicon for restricting subsequent itinerary evaluation to the indexed travel attributes;
- search for feasible travel itineraries based on the plurality of indexed travel attributes, the feasible travel itineraries determined based on at least two weighted attributes associated with each of the plurality of attributes;
- parse the user preferences into a query-specific, compressed data vector by applying a vector function derived from the user preferences that operates on at least two attribute values related to the plurality of indexed travel attributes for each of the plurality of attributes, the vector function corresponding to a value of a feasible itinerary, the vector function receiving an n-dimensional user request comprising n attributes and producing as output an n-dimensional vector, the value n being configured to vary across travel requests;
- wherein the compressed data vector represents only the plurality of indexed travel attributes and wherein the dimensionality n varies based on the number of instantiated user preferences in the travel request, thereby avoiding the processing of non-relevant attributes and reducing computational complexity of itinerary evaluation;
- ascertain a plurality of relevant attribute sets for the user preferences, each of the plurality of relevant attribute sets being associated with one of the plurality of attributes, each of the plurality of relevant attribute sets comprising the at least two attribute values for the user preferences;
- receive the user preferences from the consumer, the user preferences being associated with the plurality of attributes;
- rank the at least two attribute values related to the relevant attribute set based on preference information derived from the user preferences, thereby generating a ranking that represents a relative importance of each attribute value related to the relevant attribute set;
- assign weights to each of the at least two attribute values based on the ranking to create at least two weighted attributes for the relevant attribute set;
- associate a value to each of the feasible travel itineraries based on the at least two weighted attributes and a value score corresponding to a performance of the feasible travel itinerary under each of the at least two travel attributes determined using the n-dimensional vector, thereby generating rank-order preference data for the user preferences;
- output the feasible travel itineraries to the user to output, to the consumer, at least one multiattributed travel itinerary to output itinerary information associated with each of the plurality of attributes, wherein at least a portion of the itinerary information is variable among the plurality of attributes;
- the multiattributed travel itinerary comprising separate itinerary information for each of the plurality of attributes.
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): can be used to set up travel reservations, which are commonly commercial interactions;
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages relationships or interactions between travel customers and travel service providers, both of which may involve humans.
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; a computing environment having a front end and a back end; front end; back end; a database in communication with a (computer) processor, the database having stored thereon; look-up tables; software; obtaining data at the front end; storing data at the back end; data storage; processing data at the back end; integrating the front end and the back end; the processor in communication with the database, the processor operable; user computing device; encoded information; outputting via transmitting; outputting via presenting; visualizing information: 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) 2-13 and 15-23, 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:
- server (claims 2 and 15);
- human-computer interface (claims 3 and 16);
- data storage (claims 4 and 18);
- visually marking (claims 7 and 20);
- providing visual cues (claims 8 and 21);
- visualizing information (claims 10 and 22);
- presenting information (claims 11 and 23);
- graphically displaying (claim 13);
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 12 merely further describes information in the matrix.
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) 1-23 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:
a. Kameyama, US 20120054054 A1 (information providing apparatus and system);
b. Zweig, US 20080262995 A1 (multimodal rating system).
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, 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights