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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims and the response/remarks filed 25 June 2026.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17 and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 June 2026 has been entered.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-20 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 1-4 and 6-7 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claims 8-11 and 13-14 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine), and claims 15-17 and 19-20 is/are drawn to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-17 and 19-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1: A method for placing an order in-transit comprising:
receiving at least one input from a user, the at least one input comprising at least a passenger name record (PNR) code, wherein the PNR code is an indication of a passenger reservation, and wherein the PNR code is associated with a user itinerary of the user;
verifying that the user is a confirmed passenger based on the PNR code;
providing data identifying a plurality of selectable options, wherein the plurality of selectable options comprise data associated with at least one vendor of a plurality of vendors, the at least one vendor associated with a vendor system;
receiving data identifying at least one selected option, the data identifying the at least one selection option comprising the at least one vendor associated with the vendor system;
associating the PNR code with the at least one selected option to receive to enable to receive communications about changes to the user itinerary of the user;
generating at least one order request, the at least one order request comprising data associated with the PNR code the at least one selected option, and the at least one vendor associated with the vendor system;
automatically generating a unique order identification number based on generating the at least one order request, wherein the unique order identification number is separate from the PNR code;
associating the unique order identification number with the at least one order request;
sending the at least one order request to the vendor, wherein the vendor determines whether to accept or reject the order request, and wherein the vendor generates at least one communication comprising the unique order identification number, the PNR code, and an indication of an order acceptance or an order rejection;
receiving at least one communication comprising the unique order identification number, the PNR code, and the indication of the order acceptance or the order rejection from the vendor;
updating a status of the order based on the indication of the order acceptance or the order rejection.
automatically receiving a communication comprising a change to the user itinerary of the user;
automatically modifying the order based on the change to the user itinerary of the user.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention is directed to placing an order in-transit. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is a business activity of creating an order between two parties, which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): at least one processor of a passenger ordering system, a vendor system, a record in a database of a computer reservation system, a mobile application for a passenger ordering system, and receiving data in real-time. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does 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(s) are merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 3 and 6 further recite(s) the additional element(s): an interactive graphical user interface (GUI) (claims 3 and 6), and a user device (claim 6). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 3 and 6 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 2, 4 and 7 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 2, 4 and 7 are ineligible.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 13-14 is/are parallel in nature to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7, respectively. Accordingly claim(s) 8-11 and 13-14 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Regarding Claims 15-17 and 19-20:
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 15: A computer program product for placing an order in-transit:
receive at least one input from a user, the at least one input comprising at least a passenger name record (PNR) code, wherein the PNR code is an indication of a passenger reservation, and wherein the PNR code is associated with a user itinerary of the user;
verify that the user is a confirmed passenger based on the PNR code;
provide data identifying a plurality of selectable options, wherein the plurality of selectable options comprise data associated with at least one vendor of a plurality of vendors, the at least one vendor associated with a vendor system, wherein the plurality of selectable options comprise data associated with at least one vendor of a plurality of vendors, the at least one vendor associated with a vendor system;
receive data identifying at least one selected option, the data identifying the at least one selected option comprising the at least one vendor associated with a vendor system;
associate the PNR code with the at least one selected option to enable to receive communication about changes to the user itinerary of the user;
generate at least one order request, the at least one order request comprising data associated with the PNR code, the at least one selected option, and the at least one vendor associated with the vendor system;
automatically generate a unique order identification number based on generating the at least one order request, wherein the unique order identification number is separate from the PNR code;
associate the unique order identification number with the at least one order request;
send the at least one order request to the vendor, wherein the vendor determines whether to accept or reject the order request, and wherein the vendor generates at least one communication comprising the unique order identification number, the PNR code, and an identification of an order acceptance of an order rejection;
receive the at least one communication comprising the unique order identification number, the PNR code, and the indication of the order acceptance or the order rejection from the vendor;
update a status of the order based on the indication of the order acceptance or the order rejection;
automatically receive a communication comprising a change to the user itinerary of the user; and
automatically modify the order based on the change of the user itinerary of the user.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention is directed to placing an order in-transit. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is a business activity of creating an order between two parties, which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 15 recites the following additional element(s): at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium including one or more instructions executed by at least one processor, a vendor system, a record in a database of a computer reservation system, a mobile application for a passenger ordering system, and receiving data in real-time. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 15 does 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(s) are merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 15 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 15 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 16 and 19 further recite(s) the additional element(s): an interactive graphical user interface (GUI) (claims 16 and 19), and a user device (claim 19). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 16 and 19 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 17-18, and 20 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 15. Therefor claim(s) 17-18 and 20 are ineligible.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramos (US 20200258037 A1) in view of Li (US 20160379214 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ramos teaches a method for placing an order in-transit comprising:
receiving, with at least one processor of a passenger ordering system, at least one input from a user, the at least one input comprising at least a passenger name record (PNR) code, wherein the PNR code is an indication of a passenger reservation associated with a record in a database of a computer reservation system and wherein the PNR code is associated with a user itinerary of the user; (Paragraph [0074] “The user is presented with a form where the user can enter data relating to […] the confirmation number”; Paragraph [0075] “The successful page uses the Specific Airline API to display food menu options for the flight chosen 122”; Paragraph [0054] “A travel processing system 20A may also forward user related travel event information (communication 86A) to an order processing system 40A. The order processing system 40A may store such information in a database 48 and use such information to communicate an order with a travel processing system 20A (communication 96A) […] As shown in FIG. 3B, the travel event identification page 154B may request the travel date and provider (carrier) 153B and a travel ID 161B such a record locator code.”; Fig. 3B)
verifying, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, that the user is a confirmed passenger based on the PNR code; (Paragraph [0074] “The user is presented with a form where the user can enter data relating to […] the confirmation number”; Paragraph [0076] “For white-label apps 124 […] the entered data is verified against the airline database, returning the menu for the specific flight chosen 122.”)
providing, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, data identifying a plurality of selectable options of a mobile application for a passenger ordering system, wherein the plurality of selectable options comprise data associated with at least one vendor of a plurality of vendors, the at least one vendor associated with a vendor system; (Paragraph [0076] “If the user selects yes 136 and does want to preorder a meal, the system will then move to API order integration 138 using the Specific Airline API to display food menu options for the flight chosen 122.”; Paragraph [0075] “The user interface allows for coordinating…multiple airlines”)
receiving, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, data identifying at least one selected option of the mobile application for the passenger ordering system, the data identifying the at least one selected option comprising the at least one vendor associated with the vendor system; (Paragraph [0077] “The user will then select a first (departure) flight meal 140 and then a second (return) flight meal 142 if applicable. […] for each flight a user will travel on, the user could select a meal falling with the parameters of options provided by the airline for that flight or leg.”; Paragraph [0081] “The user may, at any time up to a deadline, make modifications to the order.”)
associating, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, the PNR code with the at least one selected option to enable the passenger ordering system to receive real-time communications about changes to the user itinerary of the user; (Paragraph [0082] “a notification(s) of the order may be sent to…the Airline/cater service via API. Confirmation of Airline/Cater receipt may further be retrieved and stored in the customer record.”; Paragraph [0083] “Changes are immediately sent the user via email, text notification, or mobile app push notification service”)
generating, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, at least one order request, the at least one order request comprising data associated with the PNR code, the at least one selected option, and at least one vendor associated with the vendor system; (Paragraph [0077] “The user will then select a first (departure) flight meal 140 and then a second (return) flight meal 142 if applicable.”; Paragraph [0078] “If the user is satisfied with the selections and result, the system will proceed submit the order 156.”; Paragraph [0082] “a notification(s) of the order may be sent to…the Airline/cater service via API. Confirmation of Airline/Cater receipt may further be retrieved and stored in the customer record.”)
sending, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, the at least one order request to the vendor system (Paragraph [0082] “a notification(s) of the order may be sent to…the Airline/cater service via API.), wherein the vendor system determines whether to accept or reject the order request (Paragraph [0083] “cadence checks with the airline/cater API are made to ensure the order has not been modified or needs to be canceled due to change in menu to items, or flight cancellations.”), and wherein the vendor system generates at least one communication comprising (Paragraph [0085] “Upon the need for a refund…due to the inability to fulfill the order by the Airline…confirmation from the Airline is captured and stored in the user record against the corresponding flight(s), along with a confirmation email/notification to the user.”)
receiving, with at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, the at least one communication comprising indication of the order acceptance or the order rejection from the vendor system; (Paragraph [0083] “cadence checks with the airline/cater API are made to ensure the order has not been modified or needs to be canceled due to change in menu items, or flight cancellations. Changes are immediately sent to the user via email, text notification, or mobile app push notification service based on user preferences.”)
updating, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, a status of the order based on the indication of the order acceptance or the order rejection (Paragraph [0085] “Upon the need for a refund, […] due to the inability to fulfill the order by the Airline, […] confirmation from the Airline is captured and stored in the user record against the corresponding flight(s)”)
automatically receiving, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, a communication comprising a change to the user itinerary of the user from the computer reservation system in real-time; ([0083] “cadence checks with the airline/cater API are made to ensure the order has not been modified or needs to be canceled due to change in menu items, or flight cancellations. Changes are immediately sent to the user via email, text notification, or mobile app push notification service based on user preferences.”) and
automatically modifying, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, the order based on the change to the user itinerary of the user. ([0083] “cadence checks with the airline/cater API are made to ensure the order has not been modified or needs to be canceled due to change in menu items, or flight cancellations. Changes are immediately sent to the user via email, text notification, or mobile app push notification service based on user preferences.”)
Ramos does not teach:
automatically generating, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, a unique order identification number based on generating the at least one order request, wherein the unique order identification number is separate from the PNR code;
associating, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, the unique order identification number with the at least one order request;
wherein the vendor system generates at least one communication comprising the unique order identification number, the PNR code; and
receiving, with at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, at least one communication comprising the unique order identification number and the PNR code.
However, Li teaches:
automatically generating, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, a unique order identification number based on generating the at least one order request, wherein the unique order identification number is separate from the PNR code; (Paragraph [0024] “The order manager 116 at the server 108 receives the order request submitted by the user. The order generator 124 extracts the data from the order request and generates an order record, […] each record comprises an order identifier (ID) 202 […] a customer ID 206” of Li; Paragraph [0025] “The order ID 202 is a unique identifier associated with a given order. […] Customer IDs 206 uniquely represent a customer.”; Fig. 2)
associating, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, the unique order identification number with the at least one order request; (Paragraph [0025] “The order ID 202 is a unique identifier associated with a given order.” of Li)
wherein the vendor system generates at least one communication comprising the unique order identification number, the PNR code; (Paragraph [0024] “each [order] record comprises an order identifier (ID) 202, […] a customer ID 206,”; Paragraph [0027] “The graphical representation 300 can be presented to the user via the user device 104. In one embodiment, the graphical representation 300 comprises information from an order record”; Fig. 3 of Li) and
receiving, with at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, at least one communication comprising the unique order identification number and the PNR code. (Paragraph [0024] “each [order] record comprises an order identifier (ID) 202, […] a customer ID 206,”; Paragraph [0027] “The graphical representation 300 can be presented to the user via the user device 104. In one embodiment, the graphical representation 300 comprises information from an order record”; Fig. 3 of Li)
This step of Li is applicable to the method of Ramos as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing data related to order fulfillment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Ramos to incorporate the unique order identification number as taught by Li and to have modified the PNR code of Ramos to be associated and received as taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Ramos in order to manage the orders placed through the server (see paragraph [0020] of Li).
Regarding claim 2, Ramos in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1. Ramos further teaches:
querying, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, the database of the computer reservation system for data associated with the PNR code; (Paragraph [0074] “The user is presented with a form where the user can enter data relating to […] the confirmation number”; Paragraph [0075] “The user interface allows for coordinating multiple flights and multiple airlines. Using the Airline API, this data is verified”; Paragraph [0054] “A travel processing system 20A may also forward user related travel event information (communication 86A) to an order processing system 40A. The order processing system 40A may store such information in a database 48 and use such information to communicate an order with a travel processing system 20A (communication 96A)”)
accessing, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, the user itinerary of the user associated with the PNR code; (Paragraph [0074] “The user is presented with a form where the user can enter data relating to […] the confirmation number”; Paragraph [0076] “the entered data is verified against the airline database, returning the menu for the specific flight chosen 122.”; Paragraph [0054] “In FIG. 2C, a user 136 via a user device 10A is provided with a travel identification page (activity 174A) as shown in FIG. 5 so a user may identify their travel event. As shown in FIG. 3B, the travel event identification page 154B may request […] a travel ID 161B such a record locator code.”; Paragraph [0055] “Once the order processing system 40A has determined or been provided the user's travel event, it can then generate an Order page (activity 176A).”; “activity 174A” and “176A” of Fig. 5; Fig. 2C; el. 161B of Fig. 3B)
generating, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, at least one communication, wherein the at least one communication comprises data associated with the user itinerary of the user, and wherein the at least one communication prompts the user to create anthe order; (Paragraph [0076] “The system will then proceed to query whether the individual would like to pre-order a meal for the flight(s) 130.”) and
sending, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, the at least one communication to the user. (Paragraph [0076] “The system will then proceed to query whether the individual would like to pre-order a meal for the flight(s) 130.”)
Regarding claim 3, Ramos in view of Li teaches the method of claim 2. Ramos further teaches:
displaying, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, data associated with the at least one communication via an interactive graphical user interface (GUI), the interactive GUI comprising at least one selectable option, wherein the interactive GUI is configured to receive the at least one selection from the user, and wherein the interactive GUI is configured to be updated based on receiving the at least one selection from the user. (Paragraph [0077] “Using the Airline API, the app returns the menu for the flight(s) chosen 122, allowing the user to select desired items and see a rolling cart cost”; Paragraph [0078] “Upon completion of selection for all flights, the user is presented with the review cart 144 at which point the user may make modifications to items, quantity of each item, and optionally select insurance 146 if desired.”)
Regarding claim 4, Ramos in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1. Ramos further teaches:
authenticating, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, the user for access to a user profile of the mobile application for the passenger ordering system, wherein verifying that the user is a confirmed passenger based on the PNR code is based on authenticating the user to access the user profile of the mobile application for the passenger ordering system. (Paragraph [0074] “If the user already has an account 116 or has successfully created a new account, the process will login the user 118”)
Regarding claim 6, Ramos in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1. Ramos further teaches:
receiving, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, data comprising a real-time status of the order; (Paragraph [0083] “cadence checks with the airline/cater API are made to ensure the order has not been modified or needs to be canceled due to change in menu items, or flight cancellations.”) and
displaying, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, data comprising the real-time status of the order via a graphical user interface (GUI) of the mobile application for the passenger ordering system on a user device. (Paragraph [0083] “Changes are immediately sent to the user via email, text notification, or mobile app push notification service based on user preferences.”)
Regarding claim 7, Ramos in view of Li teaches the method of claim 1. Ramos further teaches:
determining, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, a change to a status of a transportation mode based on the change to the user itinerary, wherein the status of the transportation mode comprises on of on time, delayed, and cancelled; (Paragraph [0096] “flight records are monitored via API to track changes in routes 204, delays 206, or could also include changes to flight numbers, and/or cancellations. It is contemplated that the system will monitor changes that would impact the ability to connect the ordered items with the user.”)
modifying, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, an order based on the change to the status of the transportation mode, (Paragraph [0083] “cadence checks with the airline/cater API are made to ensure the order has not been modified or needs to be canceled due to change in menu items, or flight cancellations.”) wherein modifying the order based on the change to the status of the transportation mode comprises:
delaying the order, based on the status of the transportation mode being delayed; or cancelling the order, based on the status of the transportation mode being cancelled; (Paragraph [0083] “cadence checks with the airline/cater API are made to ensure the order has not been modified or needs to be canceled due to [..] flight cancellations. Changes are immediately sent to the user via email, text notification, or mobile app push notification service based on user preferences.”)
determining, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, a change in a location for order delivery based on the change to the user itinerary, wherein a location for order delivery comprises one of location of departure gate, in-transit, and location of arrival gate; (Paragraph [0090] “The Ordering App checks at each milestone to ensure the accuracy of the order, as well as the flight details such as plane change or seat change, and notifies the necessary party (cater, loading personnel, on board flight personnel, etc.) of updated information and any discrepancies.”) and
modifying, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, the location for delivery based on the change to the user itinerary. (Paragraph [0090] “The Ordering App checks at each milestone to ensure the accuracy of the order, as well as the flight details such as plane change or seat change, and notifies the necessary party (cater, loading personnel, on board flight personnel, etc.) of updated information and any discrepancies.”)
Claims 8-11 and 13-14 –
Claims 8-11 and 13-14 are directed to a system. Claims 8-11 and 13-14 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claims 1-4 and 6-7 which are directed towards a method. Claims 8-11 and 13-14 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1-4 and 6-7, respectively. Furthermore, claim 1 recites a processor (see paragraph [0066] of Ramos).
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 –
Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are directed to a computer program product. Claims 15-17 and 19-20 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 which are directed towards a method. Claims 15-17 and 19-20 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7, respectively. Furthermore, claim 1 recites a at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (see paragraph [0094] of Ramos) ”) including one or more instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, (Paragraph [0066]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 25 June 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues 1) claim 1 is integrated into a practical application and 2) claim 1 recites an inventive concept. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument 1, the Applicant argues claim 1 provides an improvement to the passenger ordering with a passenger ordering system integrated with third party vendors by receiving at least one input from a user including at least a PNR code. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A judicial exception is considered integrated into a practical application when an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. USPTO guidance uses the term ‘‘additional elements’’ to refer to claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception. As described in the above 101 rejection, receiving an input from a user including a PNR code is part of the abstract idea. Therefore, receiving input from a user is not an additional element. Furthermore, passenger ordering is also part of the judicial exception because it is directed towards managing personal interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). Therefore, passenger ordering is not an additional element. Since receiving input from a user including at least a PNR code does not go beyond the identified judicial exception, the improvement is not considered to be technical in nature. The invention is an improvement to the abstract idea and not to a specific technical problem. Therefore, claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application.
Regarding argument 2, the applicant argues the claims recite an invention that is not merely the routine or conventional use of computers. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of at least one processor, a record in a database of a computer reservation system, and a mobile application for a passenger ordering system. Paragraph [0068] of the instant specification recites:
processor 204 may be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination of hardware and software. For example, processor 204 may include a processor (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an accelerated processing unit (APU), etc.), a microprocessor, a digital signal processor (DSP), and/or any processing component (e.g., a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), etc.) that can be programmed to perform a function.
As described in paragraph [0068] of the instant specification, the processor is a generic computing element that can be programmed to perform a function. The processor is being used in a general-purpose computer to perform the steps in a way that a human would. Furthermore, the database is described in Paragraph [0058] of the instant specification at a high level of generality. Paragraph [0058] recites “passenger ordering system 102 may query a database of computer reservation system 104 for a PNR code input by a user”. The database is used in its ordinary capacity to receive and store data. Finally, the mobile application is described in Paragraph [0076]: “a software application, such as a mobile application, with a client-side component stored on user device 112 that is associated with a server-side component of passenger ordering system 102.” The mobile application is described at a high level of generality. The mobile application is run on a user device being used in its ordinary capacity. The processor, database, and mobile application is a computer or other machinery being used in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the invention recites the conventional use of computers.
With regards to claims 8 and 15 the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their similarities to claim 1. As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claim 1. Therefore, claims 8 and 15 remain rejected. With regards to claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their dependency on claims 1, 8, and 15. As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected.
Applicant's arguments, filed 25 June 2026, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-17, and 19-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the cited prior art does not teach the amended claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Upon reconsideration the Examiner disagrees Ramos does not teach associating, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, the PNR code with the at least one selected option to enable the passenger ordering system to receive real-time communications about changes to the user itinerary of the user.
Paragraph [0082] of Ramos recites:
As stated previously, a notification(s) of the order may be sent to the user email on file or via app push notifications, as well as the Airline/cater service via API. Confirmation of Airline/Cater receipt may further be retrieved and stored in the customer record.
The customer record of Ramos encompasses a PNR code. The customer record of Ramos is associated with the order. Furthermore, paragraph [0083] of Ramos clarifies the changes to the order/itinerary of Ramos are sent immediately, which real-time communication.
Regarding the newly amended limitations of:
automatically receiving, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, a communication comprising a change to the user itinerary of the user from the computer reservation system in real-time; and
automatically modifying, with the at least one processor of the passenger ordering system, the order based on the change to the user itinerary of the user.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Therefore, Examiner maintains Ramos teaches the limitations.
As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claims 1, 8 and 15. Therefore, claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kulasooriya et al. (US 20213/0144701 A1): discloses a system where a merchant can approve or reject an order and the customer is notified in real-time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RESHA DESAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7792. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
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.
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights