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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/9/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 9/9/25 the following is a non-final office action. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12-16, 19 are cancelled. Claims 2, 8, 9, 11, 17, 18, 20 are amended. Claims 21-23 are new. Claims 2,8-9,11,17-18 and 20-23 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
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 2,8-9,11,17-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C, 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (l.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
With regard to the present claims 1-20, these claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process, and ultimately, is statutory. In addition, the claim recites a judicial exception. The claims as a whole recite both a “Method of organizing human interactions” and “Mental Processes”. The claimed invention is a method that allows for access, analysis, update and communication of electronic travel records, which is both is a method of managing interactions between people, and concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer/computer network does not take the claim out of the “Method of organizing human interactions”, or “Mental Processes” grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating travel information in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing travel records update process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Finally, the claims do not recite an inventive concept. As noted previously, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of accessing, analyzing, updating and communicating information related to travel records in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/9/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant argues that the process cannot be practically performed in the human mind, and for example, generating the data structure including the route graph involving a large number of nodes and edges with multiple parameters, far exceeds the capacity to be performed in the mind and completely unfeasible to perform with pen and paper. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The data structure including the route graph involving a large number of nodes and edges with multiple parameters are part of the abstract idea. The claims merely show the collection, organization and analyzation of data, which falls int the abstract idea of grouping of “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes”. With regard to data being gathered including historical travel information, being structured into a graph including nodes and edges, and having attributes associated to one another, is no more than data organization and information modeling, and can be done using a pen and paper. In addition, with reference to Figure 4 of the Applicant’s invention, this diagram literally shows the Route graph written down using pen and paper. Furthermore, the mere use of a graph data structure to represent travel data does not amount to a technological improvement or a practical application.
Furthermore, with regard to Prong Two of step 2A, Applicant argues that the claim recites a solution to the previous technological problem of building candidate travel itineraries when underlying components of the itineraries-route segments and associated parameters-are stored by different data providers, and the quantity of data to be retrieved from different sources to build each candidate itinerary makes existing solutions technically infeasible, and that claim 21 describes a specific technical pipeline for generating an itinerary. However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the present claim describes building a route graph, applying a constrained function, ranking a subset of routes, limiting queries to external data providers, generating a route subgraph, and re-ranking with real time data, these steps are merely data update and data manipulation steps. In addition, implementing the structured graph operations and modified attributes do not reflect a technological improvement since there is no recitation of a specific improvement to computer functionality, but instead merely manipulates and updates data through the graph operations based on modified attributes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system, Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (I N USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
September 29, 2025
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628