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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 11/21/2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1 and 12-14 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 9-29 of Applicant’s Response filed 11/21/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 15-16, that the claims do not recite one or more abstract ideas, and therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant first argues, on pages 15-16 that due to the recitation of the newly added limitations which require information to be stored in a .ics file format which facilitates sharing of calendar information across devices. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the claims recite abstract ideas in other limitations of the claim, as outlined below. The use of storage of data in such .ics a computer file format represents the mere generic computer implementation of these abstract ideas, since, but for the requirement to implement this step using a computer, a human could indeed obtain calendar events which are stored in such a format. The claims nonetheless recite one or more abstract ideas, and the newly added limitations merely amount the requirement to apply them using a computer. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues, on page 16, that the steps of limitations (iv) and (v) could not be performed mentally, and, therefore, they do not recite mental processes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. But for the requirement to use a generic computer component to perform these steps, a human could indeed send an itinerary search request by hand and receive and store a search result. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues, on pages 18-20, that the claims bring about an improvement to computer functionality and to a technical field. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims reduce the scope for data entry errors which could result if a user manually entered some data in an itinerary search interface after viewing an event in their device calendar, and therefore the claims bring about a technical improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that such a limitation merely represents the automation of manual tasks (data entry). Storing and retrieving information in memory has been held by courts as well-understood, routine and conventional computer function. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Furthermore, the scheduling of an itinerary by entering information is a commonplace business method, and the claims merely apply it on a general purpose computer. Courts have routinely held that such an implementation does not show an improvement to computer technology. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Finally, this limitation amounts to mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, which courts again have found does not improve the functioning of a computer. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) As such, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 19-21 and again on 24-25, that the claims do more than generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that the steps pointed to by Applicant require the mere application of the abstract idea using a set of generic computer components, as outlined below. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12-14 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a machine, a process, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1 and 12-14 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1 and 12-14, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
(i) receiving a selection of a date. . . and obtaining calendar events data. . . the calendar events data including events on the selected date, on the day before the selected date, and on the day after the selected date. . . and presenting . . . the events using the calendar events data; (claims 1, 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a selection of a date and obtain calendar events data including events on the date, the day before and the day after, then present the events using the calendar events data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar)
(ii) providing a selectable option. . . to select an itinerary search corresponding at least in part to the presented events presented using the calendar events data obtained. . . (claims 1, 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide a selectable option to select an itinerary search corresponding to the presented events; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar)
(iii) receiving a selection of the selectable option; (claims 1, 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a selection a selectable option; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar)
(iv) sending an itinerary search request. . . the itinerary search request corresponding to the itinerary search in step (ii); (claims 1, 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send an itinerary search request; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar)
(v) receiving and storing. . . an itinerary search result. . . the itinerary search result corresponding to the itinerary search request in step (iv), and (vi) presenting the itinerary search result. . . (claims 1, 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive an itinerary search result and present it to a user; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar)
the method further including sending the itinerary search result to an event attendee, including the steps of:(a) obtaining calendar events data. . . the calendar events attendees data including a list of attendees from at least one event that overlaps with the itinerary search result, the list of calendar events attendees data including respective electronic addresses of the attendees; (claims 1, 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send an itinerary search result to an attending including obtaining calendar events including a list of attendees from an event that overlaps with the search result; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar)
(b) presenting. . . the list of attendees from the calendar events attendees data from the at least one event that overlaps with the itinerary search result; (claims 1, 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could present a list of attendees; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar)
(c) receiving. . . a selection of an attendee from the list of attendees presented. . . ; (claims 1, 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a selection of an attendee from a list; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar)
and (d) in response to receiving. . . the selection of the attendee from the list of attendees presented. . . , sending an. . . communication to the selected attendee . . . in which the communication includes the stored itinerary search result. (claims 1, 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send a communication to a selected attendee with an itinerary search results in response to receiving a selection of an attendee from a list; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar)
. . . stored in a .ics computer file format compatible with RFC5455 standard which facilitates sharing of calendar information across devices,. . . (claims 1, 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could store information in this file format; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar)
The above elements, as a whole, recite mental process since, but for the requirement to implement the abstract idea steps above on a set of generic computer components, the entirety of these steps could be performed mentally. Furthermore, as a whole, the above elements recite certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since the steps recite the presentation of itinerary search results in relation to calendar events of a user, a step which would be performed by a commercial booking service booking itineraries for users.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
A computer-implemented method of sending an itinerary search result to a selected attendee, the method including the steps of: (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . in a user interface of a computing device. . . (claims 1 and 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . stored on the computing device in a .ics computer file format compatible with RFC5455 standard which facilitates sharing of calendar information across devices,. . . (claims 1 and 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; alternatively still, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a given file format)
. . . from a calendar application executing on the computing device. . . (claims 1 and 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . to a server. . . (claims 1 and 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . at the computing device. . . (claims 1 and 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
sending an electronic communication to an electronic address of the selected attendee (claims 1 and 12-14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A computing device programmed to perform a method of sending an itinerary search result to a selected attendee, the computing device programed to: (claim 12; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A system including a server and a computing device, the computing device configured to communicate with the server, the computing device configured to: (claim 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory storage medium executable on a computing device including a processor to: (claim 14; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1 and 12-14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-11 and 15-20, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
wherein step (iv) includes sending data corresponding to at least one calendar event from the computing device to the server.
Regarding the sending step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send data corresponding to a calendar event; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar. Regarding the use of a computing device and a server, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 3:
wherein in steps (v) and (vi) a plurality of itinerary search results are received and presented.
This limitation merely alters the abstract ideas recited above to receive and present a plurality of search results and therefore recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 4:
further including step (vii) in which a selectable option is provided in the user interface to request booking of a trip corresponding to the itinerary search result.
Regarding the providing step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide a selectable option to request booking of a trip; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar. Regarding the use of a user interface, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 5:
further including step (viii) in which a selection of a booking request for the trip is received.
Regarding the receiving step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a selection of a booking request for a trip; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar.
Claim 6:
wherein the device user interface includes a touch screen.
Regarding the use of a touch screen, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 7:
wherein the device includes a processor.
Regarding the use of a device with a processor, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 8:
wherein the device is a mobile device.
Regarding the use of a mobile device, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 9:
wherein the mobile device is a smartphone.
Regarding the use of a smart phone, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 10:
wherein the server is a remote server.
Regarding the use of a remote server, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 11:
wherein the server includes a processor.
Regarding the use of server with a processor, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 15:
wherein in steps (v) and (vi), a plurality of itinerary search results are received, stored, and presented, and in step (c) the itinerary search result is selected from the plurality of stored itinerary search results.
This limitation merely alters the abstract ideas recited above to receive and present a plurality of search results from which a result is selected and therefore recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 16:
further including step (e) in which a selectable option is provided in the user interface to request booking of a trip.
Regarding the providing step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide a selectable option to request booking of a trip; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar. Regarding the use of a user interface, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 17:
further including step (f) in which a selection of a booking request for a trip is received.
Regarding the receiving step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a selection of a booking request for a trip; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar.
Claim 18:
including a step of receiving permission to access the calendar application on the computing device.
Regarding the receiving permission step, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive permission to access a calendar application; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar. Regarding the use of a computing device and calendar application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use.
Claim 19:
wherein step (b) includes a step of presenting attendee identities in the list of attendees and presenting meetings that fall in an itinerary period.
Regarding the presenting steps, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could present attendee identities and present meetings that fall in an itinerary period; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar.
Claim 20:
further including the step of receiving and storing a calendar entry relating to the booking.
Regarding the receiving and storing steps, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive and store calendar entries in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial booking services would perform this step in booking itineraries for users in consideration of event dates in a calendar.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-11 and 15-20, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached on 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628